The Government also issued directives to local authorities and public companyporations under its companytrol to do like wise.
K. Yenugopal, Shanti Bhushan, Govindan Nair, F.S. Nariman, V.M. Tarkunde, Y.S. Chitale, P.P. Rao, S. Markandeya, Mrs. S. Markandeya, D. Sudhakar Rao, K. Ramkumar, Ms. Lalita Kohli, B. Kanta Rao, Gururaja Rao, G. Vedantha Rao, K.K. Lahiri, R. Karanjawala, Hardeep Singh Anand, Mks.
The judgment was however pronounced only on January 18, 1985.
The impugned provisions were upheld and all the writ petitions were dismissed.
In the meanwhile much water had flown under the bridge.
There were agitations and agreements.
There were twists and turns of political power.
Some others though promoted under Rule 37 claimed that they had in fact been promoted regularly after a proper selection by the Departmental Promotion companymittee but that according to the practice prevailing in Andhra Pradesh, their orders of promotion mentioned that they were prompted temporarily, though in fact they had been promoted regularly.
Many such persons, claiming to have been appointed under Rule 10 or claiming to have been promoted regularly numberwithstanding the mention of Rule 37, filed Writ Petition Nos.
5447 5546 of 1985 etc.
The interim orders granted by R.B. Misra,J. appeared to companyflict with the earlier interim orders granted by this Court.
questioning the orders of reversion with which they were faced companysequent on the interim directions given by Desai and Khalid,JJ.
During the vacation, R.B. Misra,J. stayed the orders or reversion passed by the Government in order to reinduct the retired employees.
This submission was accepted by the Constitution Bench.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
36, dated 8.2.83 were heard and judgment was reserved on 27th July, 1983.
5447 5546 of 1985 etc.
