SHRI DURGADAS PURKAYASTHA Vs. HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SENIORITY is very dear to Government servants. It has to be because it has a direct relation with his status, promotion and emoluments. The Petitioner herein is an Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura District, which is a Grade -post of the Tripura Judicial Service, hereinafter the service. He was appointed to the post on 25.1.83. Earlier to him, Respondents No. 3 to 7 had been appointed in Grade -I of the service and were either posted as District and Sessions Judge or Additional District and Sessions Judge. After his appointment, the Petitioner took up the matter of his inter se seniority with the High Court. This was on 27.12.1983. The contention of the Petitioner was that as Respondents No. 3 and 5 to 7 had been appointed in ex -cadre posts, he was senior to them though he was appointed later inasmuch as his appointment was against a cadre post. As to Respondent No. 4, it was stated that he had found his berth in Grade I due to a fortuitous circumstances; as such, his service in this grade could not be counted for his seniority. After submission of this representation, Respondent No. 3, who was holding the post of District and Sessions Judge, North Tripura, was transferred as District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura. The Petitioner felt further aggrieved as according to him, it was he who should have been appointed to this post because of his seniority and be sent another representation to the High Court on 2.2.84. This representation came to be rejected by the High Court on 2.3.1984 by stating that "it has no merit". A further representation was submitted by the Petitioner who also sought interview with the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Registrar of the High Court replied that no action could be taken on the representation in view of the pendency of Civil Rule No. 23/84 in which the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as District and Sessions Judge. West Triputa Was challenged. As the Petitioner had completed two years of service by January, 1985, he submitted representation to confirm him in the service. This was, however, not done though Respondent No. 3 came to be confirmed by Notification dated 10.7.85. This was objected to by the Petitioner and he submitted further representations. Getting no relief he submitted conditional resignation as a mark of protest. This was on 23.7.85. Some further actions were also taken by the Petitioner to redress his grievance but as it remained unattended be approached this Court in March, 1986, by filing the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before that the Petitioner had withdrawn his conditional resignation on 18.12 85. The main relief's sought for in this applications are declarations to the effect that (1) the Petitioner is senior to Respondent No. 3 to 7 and (2) confirmation of the service of Respondent No. 3 in Grade -I as Additional District and Sessions Judge is illegal.

(2.) BEFORE entering into the merits of the controversy, two objections of preliminary nature -one contrary to the other, may be disposed of. According to the learned Advocate General, the petition is premature inasmuch as the High Court has not yet determined the seniority of the Grade -I officers. Though this is correct, but as the representation of the Petitioner claiming seniority over Respondents No. 3 to 7 was rejected by saying that "it has no merit", no fault can be found with the Petitioner in having approached this Court in its judicial side to safeguard his interest in the matter. Though the learned Advocate Central regarded the petition as premature, Shri Majumdar who has appeared for Respondent No. 3 in the two connected cases, urges that filing of the petition is delayed inasmuch as the representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the High Court on 2.3.84 whereas the present writ petition was filed in March, 1986. We are not prepared to find any fault with the Petitioner for having waited about two years since the date of rejection of his first representation inasmuch as he was in correspondence with the High Court throughout this period and was hoping that he would get redress from this Court in its administrative side.

(3.) WHETHER newly created posts are non -cadre posts?