M. Pachiappan &
Ors. Vs. S. Markandam & Ors. [2009] INSC 1103 (20 May 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2004 M.PACHIAPPAN & ORS. ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.18811-18820/2004
ORDER
The present appeal
concerns the issue with regard to the seniority of the appellants vis-a-vis
respondents. The Government of Tamil Nadu published a seniority list of the
appellants as also of the respondents. Earlier a provisional seniority list was
published, which was circulated by an order dated 19.1.1996. Some of the
employees, who were part of the said seniority list, were aggrieved by the
seniority positions ascribed to them and filed their objections. The said
objections were considered by the official respondent. We are informed that the
said objections were rejected by an order dated 10.10.1996 and a final
seniority list was published on 22.10.1996. It is, however, pointed out before
us that the respondents herein, who filed original application before the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenged only the order dated 19.1.1996 by
which the provisional seniority list was circulated. However, during the
pendency of the aforesaid petition before the Tribunal, the
respondents/applicants filed an amendment application, in which they sought to
challenge the order dated 10.10.1996 whereby the objections filed against the
provisional seniority list were rejected. The said prayer for amendment of
original application was, however, rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that
the said prayer is barred by limitation as one year period had expired from the
date of order which was sought to be challenged in the amendment application.
This narration of facts makes it crystal clear tht the final seniority list
published on 22.10.1996 was not challenged.
The Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal decided the issue raised before it and the said
decision went in favour of the appellants herein directing for giving higher
seniority positions to the appellants.
Being aggrieved by
the said order, the respondents herein filed a writ petition in the Madras High
Court. By order dated 26.8.2003, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed and
the seniority positions of the appellants herein were directed to be shown
below the seniority position of the respondents.
Being aggrieved by
the said judgment and order of the High Court, present appeal was filed which
is listed today for hearing. During the course of hearing, Mr. M.S. Ganesh,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has pointed out and
brought to our notice that the respondents, who had filed the original
application before the State Administrative Tribunal, did not challenge the
final seniority list which was before the Tribunal and the same held the field
and continued to govern the parties as the same was never challenged. The
decisions, which were rendered by the State Administrative Tribunal as well as
by the High Court pertain only to the provisional seniority list. It was
submitted that unless and until the legality and validity of the final
seniority list is challenged by the respondents herein, neither the appellants
nor the respondents could get proper and appropriate relief. At this stage, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that he may be given an
opportunity to challenge the validity of the final seniority list so that the
entire issue with regard to the seniority position of the appellants as well as
of the respondents is settled once and for all.
On going through the
records we find that subsequent to the filing of the present appeal by special
leave and during the pendency of this appeal, the employees who were shown in
the impugned seniority list have still been further promoted on the basis of
the seniority list that is available on record.
In the light of the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we have
gone through the record and on consideration thereof, we find that by an order
dated 9.2.2004 of this Court, it was made clear that any subsequent
consequential action or promotions, if any, would be subject to the untimate
result of this appeal. Subsequent to the said order, the official respondent
has issued an order dated 30.5.2008, whereby a list of selected candidates of
Firka Surveyors for the year 1993 was published.
We are also informed
that the aforesaid list of the selected candidates of Firka surveyors is also
based on the final seniority list which remained unchallenged. After the
publication of the final seniority list, the provisional seniority list gets
substituted by the final list. Since further promotions have also been made,
the validity of which is also not challenged, in our opinion nothing survives
in this appeal. This civil appeal is accordingly disposed of. In view of the
special facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the subsequent
development, this order has been passed which shall not be considered as
precedence in any other cases.
In terms of the
aforesaid order, the application for deletion of respondent no.8 from the array
of parties also stands disposed of. Further, the order passed here in the Civil
Appeal No.926 of 2004 shall also govern the connected Special Leave Petitions
Nos.18811-18820 of 2004 and these special leave petitions are also disposed of
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
..........................J.
(DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
..........................J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)
NEW
DELHI,
MAY
20, 2009.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
