IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN! (CIVIL APPELLATE J ASD. Memorandum of Writ Appeal under section 4 of the Karna Court Act , 1961 WRIT APPEAL NO cad 4 2005 iN WRIT PETITION NO 25013 OF 1998 BETWEEN M.K-TYAGE Ste Q.6. Sq yeo*Aged about 58 years yea-t Working as Chie? Manager (Consumer sales) ~ Indian oil Corporation Mumbai ‘reread Bese Appeliant PE Complex2. V-K.Sood , (42557) Officer in Grade -G. Officer in Grade ~G 4. LK. Padmakar Officer in Grade - G (Respondents 2.3 and 4 are employees under the t" respondent and their present addresses are not known to the petitioner) AS.Ujwal Deputy General Manager (Revinary Co-Ordinaticn) Ind:an Oil Corporation Limited Okhala Installation jJamanagar ~361350 6. G.P. Agarwal Deputy General Manager (Finance) Indian Oil Corporation Limited Corporate Office , SCOPE Complex Core —2,, Institutional Area , Lodhi Road , New Dethi ~ 110003 7. A.M.K.Sinha Deputy General Manager (Lube Production) Indian Oil Corporation Limited HO Indian O# Bhavan 6-9, Ali Yurarjung Marg Bandra Bast, Mumbai ~ 400051 “Gsgo9-, RespondentsT. The Addresses of the Appellant for services of notice, process cle, fron: this Hon'ble Court are as sited above in the cause tide, i addition the Appellant may also be served through his Advocate , Shri PS.RAJAGOPAL No 56, AICIBOO Nagar , 3° Cross 17" Main, BUT M hay our 1 stage , Bangalore- 560068. Il, ‘The addresses of the Respondents for the aforesaid purpose are as stared in the cause title , except respondents 2, 3 and 4 who are employees of the 1" Respondent whose addresses are not knowa may be served theough the 1" Respondent . In the Weit Petition respondents | to 5 were represented by Sr B.C. Prabhakar , Advocate , Bangalore , Respondents 6 and 7 were served unrepresented IIL, Being very much aggrioved by the order dated 22" November 2004 passed by the Hon'ble Mr Justice N.Kumar , a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition 29013 / 1998 dismissing the Wet Petition , the appellant is preferring this Writ Appeal . IV. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, 1. The appellant and the private respondents are all employees of the I" respondent Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as corporation for short) . 1* respondent Corporation has dusing the year 1995 published seni list of its officers in Grade-l* ‘The name of the appellant is shown at serial N 48 and that of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 who are juniors to the appellant are placed at 86 , 87, and 111 tespectively in the seniority list. As a matter of fact as could be seen from the seniority list the appellant was ored to Grade F