1968 SCMR 422 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-By this petition, review is sought of the judgment of this Court dated the 18th October 1967, allowing appeals again-Mlle issuance of a writ in a service matter, affecting the order of seniority among members of a certain grade in the Income-tax Service Class I. The judgment of this Court clarified the principles on which the seniority inter se of promotees into that grade and of direct recruits was to be settled. The date of entry of a promotee into the grade was held to be the date on which he was certified as fit for promotion by the Public Service Commission, with the qualification that there could be no certification with retrospective effect. For a direct recruit, the relevant date was held to be the date of his confirmation, and it was laid down confirmation was within the powers of the Govern ment to decide, depending upon various considerations of which Government alone could be the Judge. The petitioner does not dispute "the conclusion, the findings and the interpretation of the Rules" given by this Court. The reliefs he claims appear to be in the application of these conclusions to his case and those of certain others, on the basis of differentiation in circumstances. The reliefs claimed are as below:-- (a) that the 'obvious error' in the judgment dated 18-10-1967 of bracketing the petitioner and 4 others with those provisionally certified in the letter of the Public Service Commission dated 18-11-57 be rectified (b) finding be given on the appeal of the petitioner that the date of communication is not the date of certification within the meaning of rule I( f )(iii) ; and (c) that the petitioner and others whose names were referred to the Public Service Commission in the first batch of 1957 and found fit straightaway though interviewed on 20-12-1957 shellcount their seniority accordingly with the other 29 officers promoted on 13-11-1957 and not with those officers conditionally certified. No obvious error of the kind mentioned in (a) above was shown to us. In any case, the principles laid down and the interpretation of the rules given by this Court will be applied by the Department to the facts actually found in individual cases, and a mis-statement (if any) of facts contained in the judgment will not be binding on the Department. It is not necessary to furnish assistance for the proper understanding of an expression A such as "the date of certification". It would clearly be invidious for this Court to pick out from among the large number of cases involved, the case of one or more of the officers concerned for application of the principles and interpretation laid down by itself. It is for the Department to implement the directions given by the Court in relation to all the officers whose positions are affected thereby. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.