JUDGEMENT
SATYA BRATA SINHA, C.J. -
(1.)This petition raises an interesting question as
regards interpretation of Order XXIII, Rule 1
CPC vis-a-vis the power of the
Administrative Tribunal to entertain an
application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(2.)The petitioner before us was the
Original Applicant before the learned
Tribunal in OA No.3381 of 2000. In his
application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, he prayed the
Tribunal to set aside the.Memo No.6582/
C4/2000, dated 26-5-2000 and Memo
No.6520/C4/2000 dated 31-5-2000 issued
by the second respondent herein as illegal
and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. He further prayed
for a direction upon the respondents to
recast the seniority by treating the applicant
as senior to the unofficial respondents
therein.
(3.)Admittedly, the respondents 3 to 5
herein were placed at a higher position
than the petitioner in the seniority list which
was questioned before the learned Tribunal
and upon a prayer made by the petitioner
herein an interim order was passed by the
learned Tribunal on 17-7-2000 which is to
the following effect:
"In the facts and circumstances of the
case and in view of the foregoing
discussion, pending further examination
of the matter, the respondents are directed
to examine the representation of the
applicant dated 23-3-2000 and consider
his objections as also the objections raised
by similarly situated persons in regard to
the seniority in the cadre of RTOs and
pass appropriate orders thereon. We
further direct that based on the orders
to be passed on the representation dated
23-2-2000 the respondents are directed
to make appropriate corrections in the
seniority list of Deputy Transport
Commissioners, before effecting
promotions to the next higher category
of Joint Transport Commissioner".
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.