V. V. S. , RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE proliferation of seniority disputes in service law is characterized with perpetuation. As observed by the supreme Court in Dr. G. Manila Siddaiah v. Dr. T. G. Siddapparadhya the canker of litigiousness has spread even to a sphere of life where discipline should check ambition concerning personal preferment despite the expectation that a Government servant is expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile himself to his lot suppressing disappointment when he finds a co-worker raised to a position which he himself aspired after. (See also D. Hanmanth Rao v. State of a. P. ).

( 2 ) THIS preface to this judgment is, however, not to subject the lis to microscopic judicial scrutiny nor to turn away the petitioners at the threshold. In these petitions under Article 226 of the constitution of India the question relates to correctness of a Government Order purporting to revise the dates of regularisation of the petitioners and consequent downward review of their positions in the seniority lists of Deputy executive Engineers (DEEs ). We are concerned with only with such seniority lists relating to Zones V, VI and VII. The questions raised are common in all the wri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document