Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1516 (RAJ)

P. S. Yadav v. Taj Mohd.

2006-05-05

DINESH MAHESHWARI, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 280/1992 allowing the writ petition of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The respondents had filed writ petition challenging the seniority list of ministerial staff dated 02.01.1992. The grievance was that the erstwhile seniority had been revised by that order without giving opportunity of hearing to them. The respondent Jai Narain Vyas University did not controvert the stand of the writ petitioners and in the circumstances the petition was allowed. While setting aside the seniority list the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents shall be free to redetermine the seniority after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and all other persons likely to be affected by the proposed alteration. 2. The appellant contends that the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. The appellants were placed above the writ petitioners in the impugned seniority list dated 02.01.1992 and, according to them, quashing of the seniority list has put them in a disadvantageous position taking away their valuable right which could not be done without opportunity of hearing to him. 3. As a general proposition we agree that in a matter relating to inter se seniority persons who are likely to be affected by the result of the proceeding should be given opportunity of hearing. But in the instant case we do not propose to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge for the reason that the impugned seniority list itself had been prepared altering the previous seniority list without giving opportunity of hearing. What the appellant contends precisely was the contention of the writ petitioners before the Single Judge. Accepting the contention of the appellant in the instant appeal would thus lead to futile result, as the seniority list cannot be revived. All said and done, the fact remains that the impugned seniority list dated 02.01.1992 was prepared revising the previous seniority list but without giving opportunity to writ petitioners and others. In that view of the matter the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is rejected. 4. Counsel then submitted that a direction may be issued to reprepare the seniority list within time frame. This submission appears to be reasonable. Before seniority list of ministerial staff is finalised, it goes without saying, promotion cannot be made. 5. In that view of the matter the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is rejected. 4. Counsel then submitted that a direction may be issued to reprepare the seniority list within time frame. This submission appears to be reasonable. Before seniority list of ministerial staff is finalised, it goes without saying, promotion cannot be made. 5. We accordingly, direct the respondent University to expedite finalisation of seniority list, say, within four months of receipt of the copy of the order. 6. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.