Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions. Names of Mr. Pradeep Shah and Sandeep Shah, counsel for the petitioner and name of Mr. Sudheer Tak, counsel for the respondents are shown in the cause list.
(2.) HEARD the petitioner and the Officer -in -Charge of the case. The case is set down for final hearing. The petitioners have filed this writ petition in this Court on 05.02.2009 claiming following relief(s): - "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: a) the impugned seniority list dt. 24.2.2005 (Annex. 4) & 18.4.2006 (Annex. 10) issued by the respondent department may kindly be quashed & set -aside to the extent they assign the petitioner seniority below the private respondents and one Sh. Lalit Kumar S/o. Kemti Lal. b) the respondents may be directed to assign the correct seniority position to the petitioner in the impugned seniority list and the name of the petitioner may be shown senior to and over and above the name of private respondents. c) that a direction be issued to the respondents department that the petitioner may be considered senior to the private respondents while considering their case for promotion. d) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. e) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties, a coordinate bench of this Court has passed the following interim order on 13.09.2013, which reads as infra: - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who is appointee of 13.10.1999, on the post of Sub -Inspector (Telecommunication), has questioned seniority assigned inter alia to Miss Neetu D/o. Govind Ram above him, who is appointee of 6.9.2001. The respondents have not been able to clarify as to how the appointee of the year 2001 could have been placed in seniority list above the petitioner, who is appointee of the year 1999. Admit. Issue notice. Notices need not be issued to the respondents no. 1 to 3 as they are already represented by their counsel. Issue notice to the respondents No. 4 to 11 only, returnable on 03.10.2013. Notices may be filed in two sets. One set of notices be sent through registered AD post and another be given 'dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service upon the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay petition. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Miss Neetu, who has been placed above the petitioner in the seniority list wrong, has been sent for Promotion Cadre Course Training for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector (Telecommunication), however, the petitioner, a prior appointee than many of the persons, who are sent for training, has been deprived of the same. It is submitted that if the petitioner is not sent for the training, then, obviously, he will not acquire eligibility and shall not be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector (Telecommunication). In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to send the petitioner for Promotion Cadre Course Training for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector (Telecommunication). It is further directed that one post of Inspector (Telecommunication) shall be kept vacant till further orders. The stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.";