M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) THE appellants, in this appeal, are the petitioners in the writ petition. Having aggrieved over the seniority list dated 26.7.1995 issued by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, by which the respondents 6 to 41 have been shown to be senior to the petitioners, while the petitioners and others have been shown junior to the respondents No. 6 to 41, though they have been promoted to the next higher post Grade C on the same day i.e. 20.4.1991, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the single Judge seeking to quash the same. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties and after perusing the records, dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 2.4.2004. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners and the appellants is as follows: (i) The petitioners were appointed in between 1967 and 1975 in the Mines Cadre. (ii) In 1978, the respondents No. 6 to 41 applied for and were selected for the post of Fitter and Welder etc. in Grade D. (iii) Even though the petitioners were initially appointed in the years 1971 and 1972 as Category I Fitter Mazdoor, they reached Category V in 1976 -77. (iv) Admittedly, respondents No. 6 to 41 were inducted by means of direct recruitment for which qualification required was metric and ITI. (v) They were appointed in the year 1979 to 1981. (vi) They were placed in the Monthly Cadre of Grade D before formulation of Cadre scheme. (vii)Since respondents No. 6 to 41 were against ex -cadre post, they cannot be inducted under the Cadre Scheme formulated in the year 1985. (viii) Even at the time of appointment to the Grade D post the petitioners raised objection as they want promotion to D cadre. (ix) Ultimately, settlement was arrived at on 20.10.1981 whereby the management agreed that no discrimination between two sets of operators. Category V and Grade D will be made. (x) The respondents No. 6 to 41 are juniors to the petitioners since they were appointed at the later point of time. However, the management issued a seniority list dated 26.7.1995 in which all the cadre and ex -cadre employees have been placed in the same seniority list and the petitioners have been made juniors to respondents No. 6 to 41. (xi) Having been aggrieved over this, the petitioners filed the writ petition. (xii) The learned single Judge, holding that the respondents were appointed not on ex -cadre post and rather they were appointed on higher post than the petitioners and as such their seniority list has been correctly prepared on the basis of the final settlement arrived at between the management and other parties. Aggrieved by this the petitioners have filed this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the appellants were appointed in the years 1971 and 1972 as Category I Fitter Mazdoor and after promotion given from time to time, they reached Category V in 1976 -1977. Since they were appointed prior to the appointment of the respondents No. 6 to 41, i.e., prior to 1979 to 1981, they were to be declared as senior to the respondents No. 6 to 41.
(3.) ON these points, we have heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents.;