( 1 ) THE main controversy in this writ petition is whether after dismissal of an earlier writ petition on merits in limine and dismissal of special Leave petition and review application by the Supreme Court in limine, the petitioner can file another writ petition challenging his seniority of 1982 as Private Secretary and consequently his promotion to the post of deputy Director and his seniority as Deputy director in Delhi Development Authority.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that petitioner was appointed as L. D. C in Delhi Development authority, also referred to as DDA, in 1962. He was promoted as Junior Stenographer in july, 1964 and Senior Stenographer in June, 1968. On 7th January, 1976 he made a representation to DDA and in reply dated 21st January, 1976 it was represented by the dda to the petitioner that the proposal for filling up the vacancies of personal assistant will be taken up only after recruitment rules will be finalized. Promotions from senior stenographers to personal assistant, however, were made in 1977 and two senior stenographers junior to petitioner were promoted as personal assistant. On 17th June, 1978 two more senior stenographers junior to petitioner were again promoted as personal assistant. The petitioner was promoted from senior stenographer to personal assistant on the basis of merit cum seniority on 26th march, 1979 though there were no rules. On 3rd August, 1982 twelve personal assistants were promoted as private secretaries, out of which eight personal assistants were junior to petitioner. The petitioner was, however, not promoted as personal secretary. The petitioner made representation and there after on the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner was also promoted as personal secretary on 10th September, 1982. The petitioner did not challenge promotion of senior stenographer junior to him in 1977 and 1978 and promotion of personal assistants junior to him as private secretaries in 1982.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER promotions to the posts of deputy Director were made from private secretaries by an order dated 29th August, 1986 on ad-hoc and temporary basis. According to the petitioner, it was done without framing any rules and regulations as contemplated under Section 56 and 57 of Delhi development Act, 1957. According to petitioner, even no resolution had been passed laying down qualifications, criteria and basis for promotion. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition no. 600 of 1987 titled b. K. Sharma Vs Union of India and ors challenging his super-session as personal assistant and private secretary and sought restoration of his original seniority to the post of personal assistant and private secretary and sought promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 29th August, 1986, the date from which his immediate junior was promoted to the post of Deputy Director. The relief claimed in the petition no. 600 of 1987, Sh. B. K. Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others by the petitioner were as follows: -

" I) to quash the impugned order no. F. 9 (33)/79-GAT/pt. dated 21st october 1986 being illegal, inoperative, void and ineffective. II) to restore the petitioner to his original seniority in the posts of P. As and assistant Private Secretary with consequential benefits. III) to promote the petitioner as Deputy director with effect from 29th August 1986, the date from which his immediate junior Mrs. Brij Bala Chadha, was promoted to that post. IV) that the petitioner may kindly be awarded the costs of the present writ petition. V)that the petitioner may kindly be granted such other relief as this Hon ble court may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. "

( 4 ) THE writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on merits in limine on 4th march, 1987. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, where he had challenged his seniority to the post of personal assistant and private secretary, petitioner filed a special leave petition agains