* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6784/2003 YASH PAL SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Raman Duggal, Advocate. versus M.C.D. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Shivender Chopra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 14.05.2008 1. The prayers made in the Writ Petition read as under:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the Respondent to prepare the final seniority list sof the Section Officers (Horticulture) working under the Respondent forthwith. (b) Direct the Respondent to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee and to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment to the post of assistant Director (H) and to promote them to the said post in accordance with law. (c) Quash the office order dated 19.9.2003 and direct that the appointment to the vacant posts of Assistant Director (H) be filled up in accordance with the Recruitment Rules as per law. (d) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that prayers (a) and (b) are the main prayers and prayer (c) which pertains to Office Order dated 19th September, 2003 is incidental in nature inasmuch as by the said Office Order the Section Officers mentioned therein were granted look-after charge of the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) without benefit of increased scales. 3. It is further admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the final seniority list of Section Officers (Horticulture) has been prepared and thereafter DPC’s have been held and petitioners have also been promoted as Assistant Director (Horticulture). Thus to this extent, prayers made in the Writ Petition already stand satisfied and the Writ Petition is rendered infructuous. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the question of seniority and the petitioner’s claim to seniority due to the failure of the respondent to hold DPC at the relevant time is yet to be decided. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation in this regard with the respondent-MCD, who shall consider the same and pass a speaking Order within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. If required, the petitioners will be at liberty to question and challenge the said order. 5. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 14, 2008. P