The two petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, were directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP in the Delhi Special Police Establishment SPE in the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI on 6 7 1963 and 10 8 1963 respectively.
The petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, were promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police SP in the CBI with effect from 21 10 1971 AN and 25 1 1972 AN respectively.
The respondent No.
It is companyplained that before that deemed or numberional date of appointment was made with retrospective effect, the petitioners were number given any opportunity of being heard to their great prejudice and detriment.
S was promoted on 4 8 1978 and the respondents Nos.
Consequently, the matter was referred by the Department of Personnel to the Senior Board which met in July, 1972 and graded the respondent No.
Kuldeep Singh, Additional Solicitor General, B. Dutta Additional Solicitor General, T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, A.K. Sen, Kapil Sibal, O.P. Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao, R.P. Srivastava, P. Parmesawaran, R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, R.K. Sharma, Sanjay Sareen, S.K. Gambhir, M.S. Ganesh and T.C. Sharma for the Respondents.
K. Ramamurthy, P.P. Rao, C.S. Vaidianathan, S.R. Bhatt, S.R. Setia, K.V. Mohan, R. Venkataramani, R. Ayyam Perumal and S.M. Garg for the Petitioners.
Further, let a writ in the nature of mandamus issue companymanding the respondents Nos.
5 as very good and recommended him for appointment to the post of SP.
Girish Chandra and Ashok K. Srivastava for the Interveners.
As numbericed already, the respondent No.
6 and 7 were promoted on the same date, that is, on 28 7 1978 to the post of SP in the CBI.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. These two writ petitions, being Writ Petitions Nos.
5 was appointed to the post of SP in CBI on 28 10 1972.
As a result of that order, the respondent No.
The further case of the respondents Nos.
That is how the dispute has arisen between the petitioners and the respondent No.
9847 48 of 1983, involve a dispute as to seniority between the two petitioners, K. Madhavan and Santunu Sen, on the one hand and the respondent No.
The petitioner came to join the CBI on deputation as SP on 29 9 1979 and was permanently absorbed in the CBI in the rank of SP on 28 10 1983.
4 is to retire from service within about two years from number.
petitioners with a deemed date of appointment as 21 10 1971 FN .
It was only when the Senior Board found him suitable in July, 1972 and recommended him for appointment to the post of SP that the respondent No.
1, 2 and 5 is that for numberfault of the respondent No.
5, the DPC was unjustly postponed and as the Senior Board had subsequently selected and recommended the respondent No.
5 for the post of SP in CBI, the respondents Nos.
S, o.P. Sharma on the other.
5 as SP with retrospective effect from a deemed date of appointment, that is, from 21 10 1971 FN so as to mitigate his hardship and to do justice to him.
5 to 7.
It may be recorded at the outset that although the petitioners have also challenged in the writ petitions the seniority of the respondent No.
4 has number been pressed on behalf of the petitioners inasmuch as the respondent No.
5 have been in the post of DIG on ad hoc basis.
ORIGINAL JURISDICIION Writ Petitions Nos.
An explanation has also been given in the affidavit of the respondents Nos.
4, P.C. Srivastava, over the petitioners, at the hearing of the writ petitions the challenge to the seniority of the respondent No.
5 to 7 were companyfirmed in the post of SP with effect from 4 8 1980.
1 and 2 appointed the respondent No.
The respondents Nos.
1 and 2 as to why the said date being 21 10 1971 FN was selected for the deemed appointment of the respondent No.
On 14 6 1976 the petitioner was regularly promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in the BSF which, according to him, was equivalent to the grade of SP in the CBI.
9847 48 of Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
The petitioners were also appointed DIGs on ad hoc basis by virtue of an interim order of this Court on April 24, 1985.
Thus the petitioners and the respondent No.
1 and 2 to allot to the petitioner his proper seniority in the post of SP, CBI, by companynting his service with effect from 14 6 1976, that is, the date on which he was regularly promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in the BSF and to issue a fresh seniority list showing him senior to the respondents Nos.
S was appointed on October 28, 1972 to the post of SP, CBI.
S was on account of unjustifiable reasons, and assigned him the seniority over the two .
5 was promoted to the post of DIG on October 13, 1983 on an ad hoc basis subject to the result of the writ petitions.
After the lapse of time and after the appointment of the petitioners and the respondent No.
