WP(C)/20/2002 of Govind Thapa Vs State Of Sikkim and others on 12 December 2002

SerialNo. ofOrder

': IN THE H'IGH COURT OF SIKKI-MOfroER SHEET

Writ Petition (C)

.No. 20 ofl9!fy 2092

Gc)vind Thapa

Petitioner/Appe]Iant

Versus

State of sikldm & Others

Respon.dent

Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order Order with Signature Present : M. 8. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

12.12.200

I\dr. S. P. Wangdi, Advocate General with Mr. J. 8.Pradhan, Government Advocate for the respondents.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner onadmission.

The petition has been carelessly drafted and it does notmake any sense. In paragraph 3 of the petition it has beenstated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of AssistantEngineer along with the other petitioners on 12.04.1999 and itis incomprehensible as to what is the meaning of "otherpetitioners". In relief (d) it states "a writ or direction to therespondent or each of the respondents to consider the seniorityof the petitioner and include their names in the final senioritylist after quashing Armexure P-4 and inserting the name of thepetitioner and other 8 indumbents similarly circumstanced inappropriate place in the fmal seniority list". Leaned counsel`for the petitioner is unable to say what is the meaning of "other8 incumbents". The order of promotion has also not beenarmexed with the petition. One of the reliefs claimed is that thepetitioner should be promoted with retrospective effect fromthe year 1993 or 1996 but he has admitted that he has alreadybeen promoted with effect from 12.04.1999. There is nothingto show why the petitioner should not have sought promotionin the year 1993 or 1994 itself, if he ought to have beenpromoted in the year 1993. Since the petition does not makenot bar fi.esh petition on the same cause of action.

r .awl( R. I)ayal )Chief Justice12.12.2002