WP(C)/17/2002 of N.K. Pradhan Vs State Of Sikkim and others on 12 December 2002

)_:-+i

.i

IN THE- HIGH COURT- ~OF SIKKI'M-

ORI)ER SHEET

Writ Petition (

No. 17 off;ti2002

N. K. Pradhan

Petitioner/Appe]1ant

Versus

State of Sik]cim & Others

Respondent

SerialNo. ofOrder with SignatureOrder .12.12.200Present : Mr. a. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. S. P. Wangdi, Advocate General withMr. J. 8.Pradha]i Govemment`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 incomprehen;ible as to what is the meaning of "otheri;etitioners". In relief (d) it states "a writ or direction to theresp.ondent or each of the respondents to consider the seniorityof the petitioner and include their names in the final senioritylist after quashing Annexure P-4 and inserting the name of thepetitioner and other 8 incumbents similarly circumstanced inappropriate place in the fmal seniority list". Leaned counselfor the petitioner is unable to say what is the meaning of "other8 incumbents". The order of promotion has also not beenannexed with the petition. One of the reliefs claimed is that thepetitioner should be promoted with retrospective effect fi.omthe 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 makethe same is d not bar fi.esh petition on the same cause of action.

tt .Qul( R. Dayal)Chief Justice

_`, 12.12.2002

Office Note a8 toaction (if any)taken on Order