9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the availability of a suit in a civil court is "any other remedy" under Article 226(3) of the Constitution and if it bars the entertainment of a writ petition. 2. Interpretation of the Recruitment Rules of 1968 concerning the quota system and rotation of vacancies for the post of Assistant Workshop Superintendent. 3. Validity of the petitioner's appointment as a Foreman. 4. Seniority of the petitioner relative to respondents 3 and 4. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Availability of a Suit as "Any Other Remedy" under Article 226(3): The court examined whether the availability of a civil suit constitutes "any other remedy" within the meaning of Article 226(3) and whether it bars the writ petition. The court noted that prior to the insertion of clause (3) by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, Article 226 did not impose any restriction on entertaining writ petitions. The jurisdiction to issue writs was discretionary, and courts usually declined to entertain a writ petition if an alternative statutory remedy was available. The court emphasized that the Constitution intended to provide expeditious relief from superior courts against the State, which could not be achieved through protracted litigation in subordinate courts. The court concluded that "any other remedy" in clause (3) refers to statutory remedies, not civil suits. Therefore, the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition failed. 2. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules of 1968: The court analyzed whether the quota system and rotation of vacancies should be applied to the totality of posts or separately to the posts of Assistant Workshop Superintendents. The court found that separate seniority lists for different posts, including Assistant Workshop Superintendents, indicated that seniority was intended to be kept separate. The court noted that the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Recruitment Rules emphasized qualifications in the appropriate subject (Mechanical Engineering) for the post of Assistant Workshop Superintendent. The court concluded that the quota system and rotation of vacancies should be applied separately to the posts of Assistant Workshop Superintendents. 3. Validity of the Petitioner's Appointment as a Foreman: The respondents argued that the petitioner was not validly appointed as a Foreman and, therefore, not entitled to promotion. The court dismissed this objection as being too late, noting that even if the respondents had filed a writ petition to challenge the appointment, it would have been dismissed as unduly delayed. The court held that it was not permissible to question the validity of the petitioner's appointment as a Foreman ten years after the fact. 4. Seniority of the Petitioner Relative to Respondents 3 and 4: The court examined the petitioner's claim that he was senior to respondents 3 and 4 under the quota system. The court found that the first vacancy after the 1968 Rules should go to respondent No. 3 (a direct recruit), the second vacancy to the petitioner (a promotee), and the third vacancy to respondent No. 4 (a direct recruit). Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to rank in seniority above respondent No. 4 but not respondent No. 3. The court directed that the seniority list be corrected accordingly. Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded. The court directed that the seniority list of Assistant Workshop Superintendents be corrected to show the petitioner immediately below respondent No. 3 and above respondent No. 4. The court also noted that respondents 1 and 2 should reconsider the petitioner's transfer orders in light of the revised seniority. There was no order as to costs.
|
