Skip to content


Bhawani Shanker Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1717 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1975WLN(UC)208
AppellantBhawani Shanker
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil services - seniority--new provisional list prepared on basis of date of appointment & not on basis of confirmation--writ became infructuous. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in..........to have been confirmed much earlier than january 1, 1975, the petitioner prayed that the seniority list dated march 23/24, 1971 be set aside.3. the respondents no. 1 and 2 in their reply have stated that the impugned seniority list dated march 23/24, 1971 has been superseded and a fresh provisional seniority list of substantive lower division clerks of collectorate, part as on february 1, 1975 has been issued and objections have been invited in respect thereof. according 10 the respondents no. 1 and 2 the grievance of the petitioner, in respect of his seniority does not subsist now, as the new seniority list dated january 31, 1975 has been prepared on the basis of the date of appointment of the employee concerned and not on the basis of the date of confirmation. a copy of the provisional.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition was in respect of his seniority in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. He also had a grievance regarding the date of his confirmation as according to the petitioner be should be deemed to have been confirmed much earlier than January 1, 1975, The petitioner prayed that the seniority list dated March 23/24, 1971 be set aside.

3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply have stated that the impugned seniority list dated March 23/24, 1971 has been superseded and a fresh provisional seniority list of substantive Lower Division Clerks of Collectorate, Part as on February 1, 1975 has been issued and objections have been invited in respect thereof. According 10 the respondents No. 1 and 2 the grievance of the petitioner, in respect of his seniority does not subsist now, as the new seniority list dated January 31, 1975 has been prepared on the basis of the date of appointment of the employee concerned and not on the basis of the date of confirmation. A copy of the provisional seniority list dated January 31, 1975 has also been placed on record as Ex. R/1. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have submitted that in view of the fact that a new provisional seniority list Ex. R/1 has been issued, the writ petition has become infructuous.

4. It no doubt appears that the main grievance of the petitioner that his seniority should be reckoned from the date of his appointment as Election Supervisor i.e. from May 25, 1956 has been conceded in principle by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the seniority list dated March 23/24, 1971 has also been superseded on account of the issuance of a new provisional seniorty list dated January 31, 1975. In the provisional seniority list Ex. R/1, the date of initial appointment of the petitioner has been mentioned as May 26, 1956. As regards the respective dates of confirmation of the petitioner and the respondents mentioned in the aforesaid seniority list Ex. R/1, the petitioner is free to raise objection in respect of the said provisional seniority list before the Collector, Pali. He may also in such objections raise contentions, if any, with regard to the inter se seniority of other persons. Moreover, the matter relating to the date of confirmation may no longer be of much importance to the petitioner, in view of the fact that in the new provisional seniority list Ex. R/1 the seniority has been assigned on the basis of the date of first appointment of the employees.

5. In view of this state of things, learned Counsel for the petitioner agrees that the writ petition has become infructuous and he does not wish to press the same.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //