Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7384 of 2000
Special Leave Petition (civil) 2885 of 1999
PETITIONER:
PRATAP SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE REGISTRAR, IGIT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2000
BENCH:
S.V.Patil, D.P.Mohapatro
JUDGMENT:
D E R
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Leave granted.
Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Panda, learned senior counsel
for appellant and Shri Jayant Das, learned senior counsel
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, and Shri Janaranjan
Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 8 to 11.
Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court
dismissing the writ petition OJC No.4783, the appellant has
filed this appeal by special leave assailing the judgment.
The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking issue
of a writ of mandamus to the respondents the Indira Gandhi
Institute of Technology (for short IGIT), Sarang, in the
State of Orissa and the State Government for framing of
specific rules governing his service conditions; for
inclusion of his name in the common cadre of ministerial
staff in the category of cashier/senior assistant accepting
him as a ministerial staff /cashier since 17.4.1986/
1.7.1986; for his placement in the gradation list of the
cadre of senior assistants of the IGIT.
The High Court, on consideration of the matter,
declined to grant any reliefs to the appellant and disposed
of the writ petition with the observation we make it clear
that if in the meantime the petitioner has been regularised
in the post of cashier, it is open to him to make a further
representation to allow him to continue in that post.
The main thrust of the arguments of Shri Ashok Kumar
Panda learned senior counsel for the appellant was that
though the appellant was initially appointed in the post of
assistant cashier he was discharging the duties of cashier.
Considering the representation made by the appellant he was
offered the post of cashier with effect from 1.5.1989 which
fact is reflected in the tentative gradation list of the
ministerial staff as on 1.6.1991 (Annexure P 11).
Subsequent thereto the appellant was transferred as senior
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
assistant with effect from 11.7.1990/16.8.90 and since then
he is holding the post of senior assistant. Though the name
of the appellant has been included in the gradation list as
a member of the ministerial staff of the institution his
entry into the present grade has been shown as on 16.8.1990
which in the submissions of Shri Panda is erroneous.
According to Shri Panda the posts of cashier and senior
assistant are interchangeable/inter-transferable posts, and
they carry the same scale of pay. Therefore, there is no
reason why the service rendered by the appellant as cashier
with effect from 1.5.1989 when his appointment in that post
was regularised should not be counted for the purpose of
determination of seniority. If the appellant is taken to
have made his entry in the present grade on 1.5.1989 then he
will become senior to respondents 4 to 7 herein who are
placed in the tentative gradation list at serial nos. 3 to
6 while the appellant is placed at serial no.7.
On perusal of the order under challenge we find that
the High Court has not considered the question of the
appellants claim of seniority on the basis noted above.
From the discussions in the judgment it appears that the
High Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground
that the reliefs for issue of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent No.1 to formulate a policy and to prepare rules
regarding service conditions cannot be entertained in a writ
petition. The High Court observed:
Though the petitioner had no right to the post of
cashier at the time of initial appointment, but since he has
been regularised at a subsequent stage, there