IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 178 of 1983 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 1202 of 1983 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? --------------------------------------------------------- JAIRAM SHANKE & Ors. Versus UNION OF INDIA ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 178 of 1983 MR JD AJMERA for Appellant RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1-2 ---------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 04/04/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellants who are 45 in numbers and who were the original-petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1202 of 1983 decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 7-4-1983 whereby the petition was dismissed by holding that the petitioners could not make any grievance if they were not called for the screening test in view of the fact that they were juniors to the persons called for the test. The vacancies were existing in the cadre of Gangmen and Male Belders. 2. It is the case of the appellants that they were working as casual labourers in Surendranagar unit and that they have served for more than 4 months and therefore were eligible for absorption in regular vacancies. The appellants were working in Surendranagar unit since 1975 and yet they were not called for screening test. It was further stated that as per Railway Board's letter dated 27.7.1981 the seniority has to be taken on unit basis. Ignoring this letter the respondents had called for interview the persons who were not serving in Surendranagar unit, but who were serving in Construction Department outside the unit. The appellants had therefore filed the petition before this Court challenging the action of the respondents. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the said petition on the ground that the workers who had worked for more days were called and the appellants who worked for less number of days than others were not rightly called for the screening test. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. JD Ajmera for the appellants. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition in absence of the petitioners' advocate and hence the correct facts were not pointed out to the learned Single Judge. He has further submitted that as per the Railway Board's subsequent letter dated 27.7.1981 seniority of the unit has to be taken into consideration and not seniority of the division, for the purpose of screening of the casual labourers. However, we are not impressed by this submission of learned advocate, Mr. Ajmera for the appellants. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It was made very clear in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents in Special Civil Application No. 1202 of 1983 that as per note below No. 2138 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, the conferment of temporary status on petitioners did not entitle them to automatic absorption/appointment in Railway service unless they were in turn for such appointment. It was further made clear in the said affidavit-in-reply that the eligible candidates called for the screening had put in much more service as compared to the petitioners and as such the petitioners did not become eligible for screening and hence they were not called. This was weighed with the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition and grievance raised by the petitioner in the said Special Civil Application was not rightly entertained by this Court. 4. This Letters Patent Appeal was filed in 1983 and more than 20 years have passed. The Appeal might have become infructuous because of aflux of time and it might not have any survival value by now. Be that as it may, we are of the view that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order, and hence we do not interfere with the said order while exercising our powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. [ J.N. Bhatt, Actg.C.J.] rmr. [ K.A. Puj, J.]