CW 5145/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5145/06 Bhagwat Singh Kothari Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vikrant Gupta, for petitioner Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with regard to his proper determination of seniority at the initial entry into service and so also the consequential change in seniority in the cadre of Deputy Director, Agriculture [Extension]. Petitioner through open selection was appointed as Assistant Fruit Development Officer vide order dt.15th April, 1987, as informed to this court, this post was re-designated later on as Agriculture Officer. Petitioner was further promoted as Deputy Director, Agriculture on the recommendation of DPC against quota of 2002-03 and has become eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Agriculture. Counsel submits that an integrated seniority list was published by the respondents on 9th June, 2004 and while assigning seniority to the petitioner merit assigned by the Commission has CW 5145/06 [2] not been taken note of which alone has to be taken into consideration by the department while assigning seniority under the Rules. Counsel further submits that those who were in merit list assigned by the commission at S.No.1-2 in the integrated seniority list Ann.3 they were placed at No.1-2 Shri Balkeshwar Singh & Sharad Godha but at the same time petitioner who was next in select list since got appointment later on has been placed at No.43 in the integrated seniority list, which according to him is not in consonance with recommendation made by the Commission and also clarified later by the Director (Agriculture) vide letter dt.6th March, 1987 (Schedule B). However he was promoted as Deputy Director, Agriculture against 2002-03 and became eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director, but since seniority has not been properly assigned to him in the integrated seniority list published by the respondents that is causing great prejudice to him. However, the appeal which the petitioner preferred before Tribunal is still pending and as informed to this court that next date of hearing fixed before Tribunal is 8th October, 2008 and reply to the appeal has been filed by the respondents and the matter has riped up for final hearing and it has also been informed that petitioner is going to retire in near future. CW 5145/06 [3] After filing appeal before Tribunal, petitioner approached this court with the grievance that seniority is to be assigned to him in terms of letter issued from the office of Commission dt.6th March, 1987 and so also approval with regard to assignment of seniority made by the concerned competent authority i.e. Director, Agriculture as is evident from document Ann.1 dt.6th Aug, 2001. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the very dispute which the petitioner has raised in the instant petition is pending adjudication before Tribunal and so far as assignment of seniority in the cadre of Deputy Director, Agriculture is concerned, the same has been assigned to him in terms of his placement in the integrated seniority published by the respondents dt.9th June, 2004 and if relief prayed for by him before Tribunal is accepted, certainly as a consequence whereof it will revise his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Director as consequential relief to which he became entitled for. The question which the petitioner has raised in the instant petition, in opinion of this court, is certainly pending adjudication before Tribunal and when the pleadings are complete, it will not be appropriate for this court to CW 5145/06 [4] adjudicate, particularly, when the matter has been riped up for final hearing before Tribunal. However, submission made by counsel with respect to execution of letter of the Commission dt.6th March, 1987 and so also what has been recommended by Director, Agriculture i.e. 6th August, 2001 can certainly be emphasised before Tribunal at the time of adjudication but no opinion can be expressed by this Court, since it will prejudice the rights of either party before tribunal. Without examining inter-se dispute raised by the petitioner any further, looking to the fact that the pleadings before Tribunal are complete and matter has been riped up for hearing and the petitioner is going to retire in near future, this court considers it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on the date of hearing fixed before Tribunal i.e. 8th October, 2008 or within two months thereafter if could not be heard on the date of hearing fixed. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal for compliance. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA5145CW06 9-9.doc