235 G H 236 B ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
While opposing the application for companytempt, on behalf of the Union of India it was stated in the companyrse of the affidavit sworn by Shri P.L. Sakarwal, Deputy Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi thus In view of the submissions made above this Respondent would urge that the directions of the Honble Court dated 1.2.84 in the matter of i filling the vacancies under Rule 8 ii and ii to fix the seniority according to Rules without the application of rotation system, have been companyplied with bona fide and in a good faith.
1 in person.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
After the above case was heard, the Court passed a short order on February 1, 1984 which reads thus We are number able to understand why the vacancies available to the departmental candidates under Rule 8 ii of the Indian Economic and Indian Statistical Services Rules, 1961, have number been filled up on regular basis.
The said petition was filed in a representative capacity with the leave of the Court under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. A few officers who had been recruited as direct recruits to the posts in Grade IV in the said departments were impleaded as respondents and they were sued in a representative capacity as representing all other direct recruits who were likely to be affected by the decision.
IN Writ Petition No.
2 to 25.
Govinda Mukhoty and P.K. Gupta for the Intervener.
Petitioner No.
On May 1, 1984 the Union of India filed before the Court two sets of seniority lists in respect of the above two Services namely, lists based on the principle of rotation and lists based on Rule 9 C of the Indian Economic Service Indian Statistical Service Rules.
2604 of 1985 companyplaining that the Union of India had failed to companyply with the order made by this Court and that action should be taken for companytempt against it.
S. Nariman, A.K. Ganguli, R.D. Agarwala and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
K. Garg, R.K. Jain and Guptha Jain for the Respondents.
The revised seniority lists prepared by this Respondent and finalised after inviting objections etc.
This is the second phase of the battle which is being waged in this Court.
Earlier certain persons who had been holding posts in Grade IV of these two Services had filed Writ Petition No.
Then on July 24, 1984 the Court while declining to endorse either of the two seniority lists directed the Union of India to implement the order dated February 1, 1984 on or before 30th November, 1984.
P. Rao, Uma Dutta and Miss C.K. Suchitra for Petitioner Nos.
2604 of 1985.
Union of India The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The perennial dispute regarding seniority between direct recruits and promotees which exists in Almost all the departments of Government has number spared the Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service with which we are companycerned in this case.
Since on a perusal of the said lists it was found that the position of some of the departmental promotees who had already put in nearly 15 years of service in Grade IV was worse than V the position in which they were before the writ petition was filed and were facing imminent threat of reversion to the feeder posts from which they had been promoted several years ago, the Court directed the petition to companye up for hearing before the Court on its re opening after summer vacation and directed that status quo should be maintained in the mean while.
1595 of 1979.
In the meanwhile the petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
