Writ Petition No. 8620 of 2023 · High Court · 2025
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
It transpires that the Banaras Hindu University undertook an exercise in the year 2006 to fill up 14 posts of Class-III employees, (Junior Grade Clerk) by way of promotion pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.12.2005. The exercise so undertaken resulted in promotion offered to respondent Nos. 3 to 16 of Writ A No.37741 of 2007. This promotion of respondent nos. 3 to 16 in Writ A No.37741 of 2007 was challenged by 34 petitioners before this Court. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 26.08.2011 and the orders of promotion of respondent nos. 3 to 16 was quashed. A further direction was issued to the University to hold fresh promotion to the Class-III posts against the vacancies notified on 17.12.2005. The judgment of learned Single Judge was successfully assailed in Special Appeal No.24 of 2012 along with connected appeals which came to be allowed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 29.07.2016. This judgment of the Division Bench has then been challenged in Civil Appeal No.4578-4580 of 2022. The appeal has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16.06.2022, operative portion whereof reads as under:- "33. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 29.07.2016 is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2011 is restored.
34. We have been informed that some of the appellants have retired and a couple of them have also died, post retirement. Rest of them are still working. Since the examinations have already been held in the year 2006-07 all the appellants who are found to be eligible for promotion as per the existing rules and as directed by the learned Single Judge, would be extended all consequential benefits. Further, where the appellants have died, the benefit would be extended to their legal heirs entitled under law for the same." The present appellants although were not a party to the earlier litigation but they approached the University for their claim of promotion to be considered under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This claim has been rejected by the University on 02.03.2023. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner- appellants have approached this Court by filing the aforesaid two writ petitions. The petitioner- appellants essentially contended that they are entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th of June, 2022. Learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner- appellants by holding that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of the appellants before the Supreme Court and was in personam and not in rem. Learned Single Judge for such reason has held that the present petitioner-appellants are not entitled to any benefit of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the ratio of the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is liable to be extended to all similarly placed persons and it cannot be construed that the judgment of the Supreme Court was limited to the appellants therein, only. He also submits that in the event the appellants' claim for promotion is not accorded consideration it would lead to an anomalous situation and would result in discriminatory treatment meted out to the present appellants. Shri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the University opposes such claim of the appellant relying upon the observations made by learned Single Judge. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the Court in para 33 and 34 of the judgment restricted the benefits only to the appellants therein. The judgement of the Supreme Court cannot be said to be a judgment in rem. The claim of the appellants before the Supreme Court alone was under consideration and the observation of the Supreme Court cannot be extended to anyone other than the appellants before the Court. Learned Single Judge has examined the records and has found that none of the present-appellants were either a party in the writ petition or were the appellants before the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact these persons never raised any claim for promotion either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court and the Supreme Court. The status of the appellants is that of a fence sitter. It is well settled that those who sleep over their rights cannot be allowed to approach the Court and claim parity with those who have been diligent in pursuing their claim. In the facts of the present case, we find that learned Single Judge for valid reasons has come to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court. For such purposes, learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge to non-suit the appellants. Appeal, accordingly lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 A Gautam ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
It transpires that the Banaras Hindu University undertook an exercise in the year 2006 to fill up 14 posts of Class-III employees, (Junior Grade Clerk) by way of promotion pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.12.2005. The exercise so undertaken resulted in promotion offered to respondent Nos. 3 to 16 of Writ A No.37741 of 2007. This promotion of respondent nos. 3 to 16 in Writ A No.37741 of 2007 was challenged by 34 petitioners before this Court. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 26.08.2011 and the orders of promotion of respondent nos. 3 to 16 was quashed. A further direction was issued to the University to hold fresh promotion to the Class-III posts against the vacancies notified on 17.12.2005. The judgment of learned Single Judge was successfully assailed in Special Appeal No.24 of 2012 along with connected appeals which came to be allowed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 29.07.2016. This judgment of the Division Bench has then been challenged in Civil Appeal No.4578-4580 of 2022. The appeal has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16.06.2022, operative portion whereof reads as under:- "33. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 29.07.2016 is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2011 is restored.
34. We have been informed that some of the appellants have retired and a couple of them have also died, post retirement. Rest of them are still working. Since the examinations have already been held in the year 2006-07 all the appellants who are found to be eligible for promotion as per the existing rules and as directed by the learned Single Judge, would be extended all consequential benefits. Further, where the appellants have died, the benefit would be extended to their legal heirs entitled under law for the same." The present appellants although were not a party to the earlier litigation but they approached the University for their claim of promotion to be considered under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This claim has been rejected by the University on 02.03.2023. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner- appellants have approached this Court by filing the aforesaid two writ petitions. The petitioner- appellants essentially contended that they are entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th of June, 2022. Learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner- appellants by holding that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of the appellants before the Supreme Court and was in personam and not in rem. Learned Single Judge for such reason has held that the present petitioner-appellants are not entitled to any benefit of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the ratio of the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is liable to be extended to all similarly placed persons and it cannot be construed that the judgment of the Supreme Court was limited to the appellants therein, only. He also submits that in the event the appellants' claim for promotion is not accorded consideration it would lead to an anomalous situation and would result in discriminatory treatment meted out to the present appellants. Shri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the University opposes such claim of the appellant relying upon the observations made by learned Single Judge. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the Court in para 33 and 34 of the judgment restricted the benefits only to the appellants therein. The judgement of the Supreme Court cannot be said to be a judgment in rem. The claim of the appellants before the Supreme Court alone was under consideration and the observation of the Supreme Court cannot be extended to anyone other than the appellants before the Court. Learned Single Judge has examined the records and has found that none of the present-appellants were either a party in the writ petition or were the appellants before the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact these persons never raised any claim for promotion either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court and the Supreme Court. The status of the appellants is that of a fence sitter. It is well settled that those who sleep over their rights cannot be allowed to approach the Court and claim parity with those who have been diligent in pursuing their claim. In the facts of the present case, we find that learned Single Judge for valid reasons has come to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court. For such purposes, learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge to non-suit the appellants. Appeal, accordingly lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 A Gautam ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad