1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 702/2007 For Approval and Signature : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.M.PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge ? Chandra Prakash Sharma – Appellant Versus Rajasthan State through Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & anr. - Respondents Appearance : Mr. Bhimkant Vyas, for the appellant CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN 2 Date : August 21, 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT PER: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.M. PANCHAL The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 14, 2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 2481/2007 by which the prayers made by the appellant, namely, (1) to set aside order dated August 19, 2006 passed by the respondent refusing to appoint the appellant on the post of Artisan Gr.I from June 3, 1978; and 2) to direct the respondents to appoint the appellant on the post of Artisan Gr.I from June 3, 1978, are rejected. The appellant was appointed as Artisan Gr.III in the year 1977 and his services were terminated by the respondents in the year 1985. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the appellant in service pursuant to which the appellant was reinstated on the post of Artisan Gr.III. The appellant thereafter made an representation to the respondents claiming appointment on the post of Artisan Gr.I from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Artisan Gr.III i.e. With effect from 1977. The said representation was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 1885/2006. the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the appellant made on November 18, 2002. 3 Pursuant to the direction of the High Court the representation made by the appellant was taken up for consideration by the respondents. The respondents rejected the same by order dated August 19, 2006. Thereupon the appellant invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 2481/2007. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the same by order dated May 14, 2007 giving rise to the instant appeal. This Court has heard Mr. Bhimkant Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and considered the documents forming part of the petition. The plea that the appellant is qualified and therefore, should have been appointed on the post of Artisan Gr.I, cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned that the respondents have prepared seniority list of Artisan Gr.III and in that seniority list the name of the appellant stands at serial no. 430. The employees whose names have been mentioned at serial no. 1 to 429 are senior to the appellant and are working as Artisan Gr.III but they have not been promoted to the post of Artisan Gr.I. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents were justified in rejecting the representation made by the appellant to appoint him on the post of Artisan Gr.I from June 3, 1978. The grant of relief as claimed by the appellant would adversely affect those who are senior to him in the cadre of Artisan Gr.III but they have not been impleaded as respondents. Therefore, for want of impleading necessary parties also the prayer made in the petition was liable to be refused. It may be mentioned that the appellant was ordered to 4 be reinstated in service pursuant to the award of the Labour Court which was passed in the year 1985. Thereafter the appellant had made representation dated November 18, 2002 to appoint him on the post of Artisan Gr.I and grant him consequential benefits. The said representation was not decided by the respondents and therefore, the appellant had filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 1885/2006 in the year 2006. Thus there is unexplained delay on the part of the appellant in claiming the necessary relief. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, and the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to persuade this Court to take a view different than one taken by the learned Single Judge on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the appeal which lacks merit deserves summary dismissal. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is summarily dismissed. (BHANWAROO KHAN), J. (J.M.PANCHAL), ACTG. C.J mathur/