D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 867/2011. Rama Kishan Vyas
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. & Ors. Alongwith one connected matter
[ 1 ]
11
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 867/2011. Rama Kishan Vyas
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. Deptt. & Ors. ..
12
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 610/2011. Dunger Ram
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. Deptt. & Ors. ..
Date of Order :: 7th August 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Saluja ]
Mr. S.S. Nirban ], for the respondents. <<>>
BY THE COURT:
These two intra-court appeals against similar nature orders
dated 09.03.2011 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in respective writ petitions bearing numbers 2686/2008 and
2684/2008, have been considered together.
By the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge has
considered the petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants,
working as Class IV employee with the respondent Municipal
Corporation, on the purported grievance against denial of
promotion and denial of selection grades. The learned Single
Judge proceeded to observe that so far the question of promotion
was concerned, the petitioners were treated as not possessing
the requisition of qualification of Matriculation and as such, avenue
for promotion was not available to them. The learned Single D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 867/2011. Rama Kishan Vyas
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. & Ors. Alongwith one connected matter
[ 2 ]
Judge further noticed the fact that the selection grades had
already been granted to the petitioners and observed that the
claim of the petitioners with regard to the selection grades stood
satisfied. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge
proceeded to dismiss the respective writ petitions.
In the present intra-court appeals, the endeavour of the
learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants had been to argue
that the petitioners were indeed possessing the qualification of
Prathama and the same was required to be treated as equivalent
to Matriculation; and, therefore, the petitioners-appellants are
entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Lower
Division Clerk. However, when it has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the case as
sought to be set up in these intra-court appeals was not
specifically pleaded before the learned Single Judge, the learned
counsel for the petitioners-appellants, after examining the record,
frankly submitted that the objection regarding specific and
necessary pleadings in regard to the submissions sought to be
made in these intra-court appeals cannot be seriously contested
by him. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the basic
grievance of the petitioners-appellants had been in regard to the
denial of promotion and non-consideration of equivalence of the
qualification possessed by them; and otherwise, so far the claim
for grant of selection grades was concerned, that had already
been satisfied, even prior to the filing of the respective writ
petitions.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 867/2011. Rama Kishan Vyas
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. & Ors. Alongwith one connected matter
[ 3 ]
The learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants
submitted that may be for want of adequate and proper
communication, the petitioners-appellants had not been able to
project their grievance in an intelligible manner and that has
resulted in all the mix-up. In this view of the matter, the learned
counsel made a prayer that each of the petitioners-appellants may
be permitted to withdraw from the respective writ petition with
liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance
with law. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, in
all fairness, has not objected to the prayer so made by the learned
counsel for the appellants.
In the totality of the circumstances and particularly after
having gone through the pleadings as taken in the original
petitions and the submissions as sought to be made, we are of the
view that it shall be in the interest of justice if the petitioners-
appellants are granted the permission and liberty as prayed for.
Accordingly, the petitioners-appellants are permitted to
withdraw; and the respective writ petitions stand dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
In view of the above, these appeals are, obviously, rendered
redundant and are dismissed as such.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
/Mohan/
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 867/2011. Rama Kishan Vyas
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. & Ors. Alongwith one connected matter
[ 4 ]
12
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 610/2011. Dunger Ram
Vs.
Director, Local Self Govt. Deptt. & Ors. ..
Date of Order :: 7th August 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Saluja ]
Mr. S.S. Nirban ], for the respondents. <<>>
BY THE COURT:
Vide common order made in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W)
No. 867/2011 : Rama Kishan Vyas Vs. Director, Local Self Govt.
Deptt. & Ors.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
/Mohan/