1973 (2) TMI 138 - HC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority and Promotion of Lower Division Assistants.
2. Validity and Finality of Government Orders.
3. Implementation of Court Orders.
4. Applicability of Res Judicata.
5. Delay and Laches in Filing Representation and Writ Petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority and Promotion of Lower Division Assistants:
The petitioner, a lower division assistant, claimed seniority over opposite parties 3, 4, and 5, who were promoted to Grade II U.D. Assistants on various dates. The petitioner argued that his seniority was not considered during these promotions. The government initially ordered the reversion of opposite parties 4 and 5 and promotion of the petitioner (Annexure-1), but later canceled this order (Annexure-A), stating that the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion based on merit and suitability.

2. Validity and Finality of Government Orders:
The court examined the finality of government orders. It was held that a government order becomes final only when it is communicated to the concerned party as per Article 166 of the Constitution. Annexure-1 was not communicated to the petitioner and was thus provisional. The government had the right to reconsider and cancel it, which they did through Annexure-A.

3. Implementation of Court Orders:
The petitioner argued that the government did not comply with the court's directive in O.J.C. No. 792/69 (Annexure-2) to fix the inter se seniority within three months. The government, however, stated that they had fixed the seniority among lower division assistants but not in Grade II, as the petitioner was not promoted. The court found that the government had complied with the directive to the extent feasible, given that the petitioner was not promoted.

4. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The court held that the principle of res judicata applied to this case. In O.J.C. 792/69, the court did not accept Annexure-1 as final, and the petitioner did not raise this issue. Therefore, the petitioner was barred from raising it in the current writ application. The court also noted that the withdrawal of O.J.C. 709/70 on the grounds that it had become infructuous constituted res judicata, as it implied the petitioner accepted the government's position.

5. Delay and Laches in Filing Representation and Writ Petition:
The court discussed the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that utmost expedition is required in constitutional claims. The petitioner filed his representation against the promotion of opposite parties 3 and 4 after significant delays (three years and two and a half years, respectively). The court held that such delays, without satisfactory explanation, barred the petitioner from seeking relief. The writ application against opposite parties 3 and 4 was dismissed on these grounds.

Conclusion:
The petitioner's writ application was dismissed on multiple grounds, including the provisional nature of Annexure-1, compliance with court orders to the extent feasible, applicability of res judicata, and significant delay and laches in filing representations and the writ petition. The court found that the petitioner's case was considered on merits during each promotion, and no rights were violated.