MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Babu Lal against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge passed in S. B. C. W. P. No. 4121/1994, dt. 22. 2. 1995 which had been disposed of with certain observations alongwith a batch of several other writ petitions.
(2.) THE petitioner had initially filed a writ petition bearing S. B. C. W. Petiton No. 2705/1994 for granting him appointment on the post of Assistant Secretary in Gram Panchayat Phagi on the ground that on 29. 11. 1991 an order was passed by the High Court in S. B. C. W. P. 1104/89 wherein it was observed that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons may be absorbed in various Gram Panchayats on the post of Assistant Secretary as and when the vacancies arose. THE petitioner's grievance was that ignoring the aforesaid direction, an advertisement was issued for fresh recruitment of Assistant Secretary in various Gram Panchayats which prompted the petitioner-Babu Lal as also some other affected persons to file various other writ petitions which were registered by different numbers as per their date of institutions. Thus a batch of writ petitions alongwith appellant- Babu Lal's petition which were clubbed together were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order on 22nd February 1995. The learned Single Judge who disposed of all the writ petitions by a common judgment and order, observed therein that the candidature of those persons who have served as Assistant Secretary in different Panchayat Samities would be sympathetically considered as and when the vacancies arose on which they can be absorbed and at that point of time, the question of any bar due to over-age would not be allowed to come in their way. The petitioner has preferred this appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, but during pendency of this appeal the appellant has already been granted appointment as Gram Sevak in Panchayat Samiti Phagi. It is thus obvious that the relief sought by the petitioner has already been granted to him and the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. But the counsel for the appellant has sought to stretch the ambit and scope of this appeal by urging that the petitioner being eligible for appointment at a much earlier date and a direction also was in his favour like other similarly situated persons to be absorbed in the Gram Panchayat as and when the vacancies arose, the appellant should have been absorbed on the post much earlier as the vacancies were available and therefore he should have been granted the appointment with retrospective effect so as to claim the seniority on this post. We find no substance in this contention as this dispute had not been gone into by the learned Single Judge at all as the learned Single Judge had merely reiterated the observation made earlier that the petitioners including this appellant should be considered for appointment as and when the vacancies arose from which it can reasonably be inferred that the vacancies were not available when the learned Single Judge decided the writ petitions on 22nd February 1995. If the vacancies had been in existence, there would have been no reasons for the learned Single Judge merely to observe that the petitioners may be absorbed on the post as and when the vacancies arose. Therefore, in absence of any material as to when exactly the posts were available for the absorption of the appellant as also some other similarly situated persons which are not available before this appellate forum, the relief sought by the appellant which was not even adjudicated by the learned Single Judge cannot be granted, as the basic question regarding their initial appointment and their absorption from this date itself was not finally determined by the learned Single Judge and a mere observation was recorded for their absorption as and when the vacancies arose. It can therefore also be reasonably inferred that the learned Single Judge had impliedly rejected this prayer of the petitioners else, there would have been no occasion to merely make an observation and refusing to quash the advertisement for fresh appointment. In this scenario, endeavor of the counsel for the appellant to stretch the scope of the dispute and seek a relief on behalf of the appellant raising the question of retrospective appointment and seniority, is wholly unsustainable based on no material available before this Appellate Court nor it was the question which had been gone into by the learned Single Judge as already stated hereinbefore.
(3.) THE appeal under the circumstance stands dismissed as infructuous. It is however in the interest of justice to observe that the question of seniority is left open to the petitioner to agitate by seeking any other alternative remedy that may be available to him under the law. .;