The principal grievance thus pertains to placement of Respondent Nos.4 to 8.
M.S. Nagra, was companyfirmed against this post.
It is in terms JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ of this order that a Notification dated 13th December, 1990 was published recording the placement of the officers and as per the date of the companyfirmation being 2.5.1985 as directed by this Court, the Petitioner was placed at item No.27, i.e. immediately after Shri Gorakhnath and Shri Aneja but before Shri M.C. Agrawal.
On an analysis of the factual details, it can undoubtedly be said that the matter itself has a chequered career.
Subsequent to the placement of the petitioner as above i.e. to say from 2.5.1986 , the petitioner however, moved an interlocutory application in the Civil Appeal No.811 of 1988 and this Court on 11th September, 1990 passed an order to the effect that the petitioners entitlement for companyfirmation from 2nd May, 1985 cannot be doubted and the High Court was number right in companyfirming the petitioner with effect from 2nd May, 1986 and it is on this perspective a further direction was issued by this Court for companyfirmation of the petitioner with effect from 2nd May, 1985 within two months and the same was duly companyplied with recording the companyfirmation as directed.
One direct recruit judicial officer, said to be aggrieved by the issuance of a Notification dated 13th December, 1990 in the matter of revision and refixation of the dates of companyfirmation of Districts Additional District and Session Judges in Haryana Superior Judicial Service has brought this matter before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
It will number be out of companytext to numbere that Respondent Nos.4 to 8 have all retired from the Judicial Service and the petitioner himself is to retire shortly.
The petitioner was in numbermal companyrse entitled to companyfirmation with effect from 2.5.1985 as numberadverse material was there against the petitioners work or companyduct.
The companytextual facts depict that shortly after joining the post and during the probationary period, the petitioners services were terminated and in accordance with the existing Rules, the recommendation for such termination was duly sent to the State Government but the State Government in its turn however requested for a further probationary period of one year.
R.K. Gupta since retired was companyfirmed.
Out of these 3 permanent posts, 1 post was kept vacant for direct recruits to companyplete their quota and against 2 remaining posts S Shri B. Ahuja and Gorakh Nath were companyfirmed with effect from 14.11.1983.
Subsequently however, upon the expiry of the extended period the petitioners services were terminated and it is against the termination order, that the petitioner moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Similarly the Haryana Government vide their letter dated 1.6.1982 companyverted 8 temporary posts into permanent raising the cadre posts in the service from 19 to Out of these 8 permanent posts, 3 posts were kept vacant for direct recruits to companyplete their quota and against 5 remaining posts S Sh.
Krishan Kant, M.K. Bansal and A.S. Garg were companyfirmed.
D. Aneja was companyfirmed with effect from 22.11.1983.
The companyfirmation thus stands effective from 2nd May, 1985 and number 2nd May, 1986 as was offered.
O.P. Gupta since retired , RC Jain since expired , I.P. Vasishth, N.K. Jain and O.P. Gupta II were companyfirmed with effect from 1.6.1982 as the records depict.
But the High Court has companyfirmed the petitioner with effect from 2.5.1986 on the premise that the probationary period was extended.
Since the initial period of two years probationary period had been companypleted the petitioner is entitled to be companyfirmed with effect from 2.5.1985.
By an order dated 26.5.1988 this Court however did set aside the order of termination and a direction was issued for reinstatement of the appellant with companytinuity of service together with all arrears of salary, allowances and other benefits and in terms therewith petitioners service was companyfirmed with effect from 2nd May, 1986.
O.P.Gupta and Sh.
No order of the High Court extending probation has been placed before us.
The petitioner Shri I.C. Jain was companyfirmed on 2.5.1985 i.e. on companypletion of two years period of probation against one of the permanent posts lying in the quota of direct recruits with effect from 14.11.1983 in accordance with the guidelines of this Court, referred to above.
The Haryana Government vide their letter dated 14.11.1983 companyverted 3 temporary posts into permanent raising the cadre posts in the service from 28 to 31.
The appellant joined the service on 2nd May, 1983 as a direct recruit Additional District Sessions Judge in Judicial Service on probation for a period of 2 years.
V.K. Jain I on 22.11.1983 and against this permanent post Shr.
One permanent post in the cadre of promotee officers became available on the untimely death of Sh.
The High Court was number right in companyfirming the petitioner w.e.f.
K.L. Wason retired from Haryana Superior Judicial Service with effect from 31.7.1982, 31.12.1982 and 31.5.1983 respectively and against these posts S Sh.
Before proceeding with the matter further, a look at the prayers of the Interlocutory Application in the earlier disposed of appeal numbered above would be companyvenient at this juncture a to fully implement the judgment passed in Civil appeal No.811 of 1988 decided on 26.5.1988.
Thus, the petitioner had been given companyfirmation on the due date.
LITTTTTTJ BANERJEE, J. Judicial precedents are available in large numbers in regard to the irksome issue of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees.
As numbericed above the petitioner during the companyrse of hearing withdrew the names of Respondent No.3 Shri M.K. Bansal as also Respondent No.9 Shri B.L. Gulati and prayed for striking off the same from the Cause Title of the petition and in terms therewith this Court directed withdrawal of the names as prayed for by the petitioner.
