Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Adesh Kuarm Garg v. The Distt. Judge, Aligarh Andors. - WRIT - A No. 32932 of 1996 [2006] RD-AH 9965 (22 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 9


Adesh Kumar Garg - Petitioner


The District Judge, Aligarh and others- Respondents

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. No one appears for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned standing counsel appears for State respondent No.2.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of District Judge  dated 24.8.1996 passed on administrative side by which the District Judge, Aligarh has rejected his representation to re-determine his seniority and to revise the gradation list.

3. The record shows that there was some dispute of seniority between petitioner and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The dispute was resolved by the then District Judge, Aligarh in the year 1986, after seeking enquiry report of Shri Maqsood Ahmad. The District Judge found that Shri Girdhari Lal Narula-respondent No. 3 was appointed through a selection committee in which he was placed at 8th position, whereas Shri Shyam Babu Sharma; Tej Singh and Ram Singh were at 9th, 10th and 11th position. Shri Girdhari Lal Narula, however, joined on 18.8.1963 as he was living at Ghaziabad while others joined on 16.4.1964. The seniority of the candidates of same selection has to be taken in accordance with the merit list and thus Girdhari


Lal Narula was treated to be senior to Shri Shyam Babu Sharma; Shri Tej Singh and Shri Ram Singh.

4. In the year 1978 when merger rules came into force, Shri Girdhari Lal Narula was confirmed employee, whereas Shri Adesh Kumar Garg was not confirmed. Accordingly, the seniority dispute was decided by the District Judge, Aligarh.

5. The District Judge, Aligarh further observed in his order dated 9.12.1986 annexed to the counter affidavit of Shri Girdhari Lal Narula that Shri Adesh Kumar Garg made entries in his own service book about his confirmation. The District Judge took strong objection on such a misconduct and observed that in the year 1976 Shri Adesh Kumar Garg could not be treated as confirmed employee. Both Shri Om Prakash Srivastava and Shri Adesh Kumar Garg were continuously serving since 14.8.1962 and that both of them were appointed in the Collectorate. Shri O.P. Upadhyay was treated as senior to Shri Garg. These orders became final between the parties and the gradation list was drawn accordingly.

6. It appears that the petitioner again raised the same  dispute  by making representation to gradation list prepared on 27.8.1993. The gradation list was revised on 19.8.1996. A Writ Petition No. 21949 of 1994 was filed by Shri S.K. Trivedi in which an order was passed to decide his representation and that the District Judge by his order dated 12.8.1996 confirmed the list while deciding the representation of Shri Surendra Pratap Dixit.


7. The District Judge then directed a fresh gradation list to be prepared as per report of the Committee dated 6.4.1996 for further promotions, which had recommended to prepare a  comprehensive seniority list  prepared excluding those who were superannuated and had expired and then approved the report of the Committee of Additional and Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 24.8.1996.

8. In public services greater weight is attached to the long standing gradation list. It is not appropriate to tinker with the gradation list every time when it is redrawn and  representations are  made. The petitioner's representation was rejected in the year 1986 itself. It will thus not be appropriate to refer the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts ( Absorption of Collectorate Employees) Rules 1980 and to reconsider the seniority all over again, specially when the petitioner and all the private respondents have retired long ago. Further I find that the petitioner has not brought on record the developments subsequent to filing of the writ petition and other persons in the gradation list which may also be affected in case any decision to be made in this case. In fact the writ petition, which is even otherwise does not call for interference, has virtually become infructuous.

9. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.

Dt. 22.5.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.