Pritpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: C.M.P. No. 7058/86 in W.P. No.266 of 1979.
Petitioner: Pritpal Singh & Ors.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: C.M.P. No. 7058/86 in W.P. No.266 of 1979.
Judges: A.P.SEN & K.N.SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 03, 1987
Appearances:
Mr.V.M.Tarkunde,Sr.Adv.,
Mrs.M.Karanjawala, Adv and
Mr.R.Karanjawala,Adv.for the Petitioners.
Mrs.M.Karanjawala, Adv and
Mr.R.Karanjawala,Adv.for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rajinder Sachar,Sr. Adv., M/s. S.K.Mehta, Arun Nehra, S.M.Sarin, T.George, M.K.Dua and Aman Vachhar, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
PUNJAB SUPERIOR JUDICIAL SERVICE:
Seniority – Final seniority list challenged on the ground that there was non-compliance of the directions of the Court – Remedy lies by way of petition under Art.226 of the Constitution in the High Court and not by this application for directions.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This application for directions appears to be wholly misconceived. It purports to challenge the final seniority list of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Cadre as published by the State of Punjab in Gazette Notification dated February 27, 1982 on the ground that there is non – compliance of the directions made by this Court in Pritpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1981(1) SCR 1024. If that be so, the remedy of the petitioners is by way of a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution in the High Court and not by this application for directions.
2. The application for directions is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the High Court, if so advised, subject to just objections.
1. This application for directions appears to be wholly misconceived. It purports to challenge the final seniority list of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Cadre as published by the State of Punjab in Gazette Notification dated February 27, 1982 on the ground that there is non – compliance of the directions made by this Court in Pritpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1981(1) SCR 1024. If that be so, the remedy of the petitioners is by way of a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution in the High Court and not by this application for directions.
2. The application for directions is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the High Court, if so advised, subject to just objections.
