Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 1340
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.N. Jha,Dinesh Maheshwari
P.S.Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Taj Mohd. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 812 of 2006
Decided On : 05/05/2006
Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the Appellant.
In matters of seniority, persons likely to be affected by the result should be given an opportunity of hearing before any alterations are made to the seniority list.
Headnote:
Opportunity of Hearing - Seniority List - The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to set aside the seniority list dated 02.01.1992 as it was prepared without giving opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The appellant's contention that the order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing was rejected, as the impugned seniority list itself had been prepared without such opportunity.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the seniority list of ministerial staff dated 02.01.1992, alleging that it had been revised without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the seniority list and directing the respondents to redetermine the seniority after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and others likely to be affected.
Finding of the Court:
The court did not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, as the impugned seniority list had been prepared without giving opportunity of hearing. The appellant's contention that the order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing was rejected, and a direction was issued to the respondent University to expedite finalisation of the seniority list within four months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order setting aside the seniority list dated 02.01.1992 without giving opportunity of hearing was justified, and whether the appellant's contention of not being given an opportunity of hearing was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: In a matter relating to inter se seniority, persons likely to be affected by the result should be given an opportunity of hearing. The court upheld the decision to set aside the seniority list as it was prepared without such opportunity, and rejected the appellant's contention as it would lead to a futile result.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and a direction was issued to the respondent University to expedite finalisation of the seniority list within four months.
1. This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 280/1992 allowing the writ petition of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The respondents had filed writ petition challenging the seniority list of ministerial staff dated 02.01.1992. The grievance was that the erstwhile seniority had been revised by that order without giving opportunity of hearing to them. The respondent Jai Narain Vyas University did not controvert the stand of the writ petitioners and in the circumstances the petition was allowed. While setting aside the seniority list the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents shall be free to redetermine the seniority after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and all other persons likely to be affected by the proposed alteration.
2. The appellant contends that the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. The appellants were placed above the writ petitioners in the impugned seniority list dated 02.01.1992 and, according to them, quashing of the seniority list has put them in a disadvantageous position taking away their valuable right which could not be done without opportunity of hearing to him.
3. As a general proposition we agree that in a matter relating to inter se seniority persons who are likely to be affected by the result of the proceeding should be given opportunity of hearing. But in the instant case we do not propose to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge for the reason that the impugned seniority list itself had been prepared altering the previous seniority list without giving opportunity of hearing. What the appellant contends precisely was the contention of the writ petitioners before the Single Judge. Accepting the contention of the appellant in the instant appeal would thus lead to futile result, as the seniority list cannot be revived. All said and done, the fact remains that the impugned seniority list dated 02.01.1992 was prepared revising the previous seniority list but without giving opportunity to writ petitioners and others. In that view of the matter the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is rejected.
4. Counsel then submitted that a direction may be issued to reprepare the seniority list within time frame. This submission appears to be reasonable. Before seniority list of ministerial staff is finalised, it goes without saying, promotion cannot be made.
5. We accordingly, direct the respondent University to expedite finalisation of seniority list, say, within four months of receipt of the copy of the order.
6. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
