The present appeal concerns the issue with regard to the seniority
of the appellants vis-a-vis respondents. The Government of Tamil Nadu
published a seniority list of the appellants as also of the respondents. Earlier a
provisional seniority list was published, which was circulated by an order
dated 19.1.1996. Some of the employees, who were part of the said seniority
list, were aggrieved by the seniority positions ascribed to them and filed their
objections. The said objections were considered by the official respondent. We
are informed that the said objections were rejected by an order dated
10.10.1996 and a final seniority list was published on 22.10.1996. It is,
however, pointed out before us that the respondents herein, who filed original
application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenged only
the order dated 19.1.1996 by which the provisional seniority list was
circulated. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid petition before the
Tribunal, the respondents/applicants filed an amendment application, in which
they sought to challenge the order dated 10.10.1996 whereby the objections
filed against the provisional seniority list were rejected. The said prayer for
amendment of original application was, however, rejected by the Tribunal on
the ground that the said prayer is barred by limitation as one year period had
expired from the date of order which was sought to be challenged in the
amendment application. This narration of facts makes it crystal clear tht the
final seniority list published on 22.10.1996 was not challenged.
The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal decided the issue
raised before it and the said decision went in favour of the appellants herein
directing for giving higher seniority positions to the appellants.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed a
writ petition in the Madras High Court. By order dated 26.8.2003, the
aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the seniority positions of the appellants
herein were directed to be shown below the seniority position of the
respondents.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the High
Court, present appeal was filed which is listed today for hearing. During the
course of hearing, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, has pointed out and brought to our notice that the respondents,
who had filed the original application before the State Administrative
Tribunal, did not challenge the final seniority list which was before the
Tribunal and the same held the field and continued to govern the parties as the
same was never challenged. The decisions, which were rendered by the State
Administrative Tribunal as well as by the High Court pertain only to the
provisional seniority list. It was submitted that unless and until the legality
and validity of the final seniority list is challenged by the respondents herein,
neither the appellants nor the respondents could get proper and appropriate
relief. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states
that he may be given an opportunity to challenge the validity of the final
seniority list so that the entire issue with regard to the seniority position of the
appellants as well as of the respondents is settled once and for all.
On going through the records we find that subsequent to the
filing of the present appeal by special leave and during the pendency of this
appeal, the employees who were shown in the impugned seniority list have still
been further promoted on the basis of the seniority list that is available on
record.
In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, we have gone through the record and on
consideration thereof, we find that by an order dated 9.2.2004 of this Court, it
was made clear that any subsequent consequential action or promotions, if any,
would be subject to the untimate result of this appeal. Subsequent to the said
order, the official respondent has issued an order dated 30.5.2008, whereby a
list of selected candidates of Firka Surveyors for the year 1993 was published.
We are also informed that the aforesaid list of the selected
candidates of Firka surveyors is also based on the final seniority list which
remained unchallenged. After the publication of the final seniority list, the
provisional seniority list gets substituted by the final list. Since further
promotions have also been made, the validity of which is also not challenged, in
our opinion nothing survives in this appeal. This civil appeal is accordingly
disposed of. In view of the special facts and circumstances of this case and in
view of the subsequent development, this order has been passed which shall not
be considered as precedence in any other cases.
In terms of the aforesaid order, the application for deletion of
respondent no.8 from the array of parties also stands disposed of. Further, the
order passed here in the Civil Appeal No.926 of 2004 shall also govern the
connected Special Leave Petitions Nos.18811-18820 of 2004 and these special
leave petitions are also disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs.