JUDGEMENT
NARAYANA PAI, C.J. -
(1.)These are unnecessary interlocutory applications which would not have
been filed but for the fact that there is some apprehension in the mind of
Mr. Javali's clients that an order of dismissal made by this Court in the
said two writ petitions as withdrawn is likely to be interpreted to their
prejudice.
(2.)The question involved in the writ petitions was one of a right to
promotion on the basis of certain rules or amendment to the rules. A certain
order was made in favour of the petitioners. Thereupon, two persons
filed writ petitions for recalling the previous order on the ground that the
same has been made in their absence inspite of the fact that they were
vitally interested in the question of promotion debated in the writ petitions.
Their contention was accepted by this Court. The previous orders
were recalled and the writ petitions revived for fresh hearing after impleading
new parties. While doing so, the Court made an observation which
is clarificatory in nature reading:
"Until these two writ petitions are disposed of afresh as above
stated we direct the promotions of these petitioners in these two writ
petitions which have now since been made will not be disturbed."
(3.)Subsequently, the petitioners in WP. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1967 filed
a memo for withdrawing the same, whereupon the Court made the following
order:
"Petitioners' Counsel files a memo that he withdraws the writ
petitions in view of a direction issued by the Government to the effect
that promotions will be made without reference to the impugned rules.
The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.