Karnataka High Court
K M Nagaraj vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 13 July, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.A.Nos.5477-5482/2003 (S).
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.M.NAGARAJ,
S/O. MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, DHARWAD.
2. SRI.C.M.SATISH,
S/O.MALESIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, BELLARY.
3. SRI.M.K.PRABHUDEV,
S/O.MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, BELGAUM.
4. SRI.K.M.LINGARAJU,
S/O. LATE K.MALLESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, DAVANGERE.
5. SRI.A.RAMESH,
S/O. LATE SRI.Y.ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
-: 2 :-
OFFICER, KSPCB, UTILITY BUILDING,
22ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
6. SRI.A.UDAY KUMAR,
S/O. LATE SRI.H.ANNAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, UTILITY BUILDING,
9TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: J.PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR M/S. RAVIVARMA KUMAR
ASSOCIATES FOR APPELLANTS IN WA.5477/03, 5479/03,
5480-82/03 AND SRI.S.G.PANDIT, ADV. FOR APPELLANT IN
WA.No.5478/03)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
UTILITY BUILDING, 8TH FLOOR,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPT. OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
IV FLOOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SRI.B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PRESENTLY MEMBER SECRETARY I/C.,
KSPCB, UTILITY BUILDING,
8TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. SRI.M.N.JAYAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-: 3 :-
PRESENTLY SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER I/C., KSPCB, UTILITY BUILDING,
22ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
5. SRI.NANDAKUMAR,
S/O. SRI.SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, UTILITY BUILDING,
9TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
6. SRI.B.G.MOHAN KRISHNAN,
S/O. SRI.B.S.GOPALAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL
AREA, MANGALORE.
7. SRI.R.SHYAM SUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER, KSPCB, NO.12,
SHIVA GOVINDA BUSINESS CENTRE,
HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 027.
8. SRI.B.N.RAMESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER,
KSPCB, KRS ROAD,
METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MYSORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADV. FOR R-1, SRI
B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R-2, SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.
FOR M/s.P.S.RAJAGOPAL ASSTS., FOR R.3 TO 5, SRI
S.V.NARASIMHA, ADV. FOR R.6 TO 8).
-: 4 :-
******
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NOS.33001-33002/2002 C/W W.P.Nos.18251/1998 AND
20929-20931/1998 DATED 11/06/2003.
THESE APPEALS BEING RESERVED AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
These appeals assail the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11/06/2003, passed in a batch of writ petitions whereby, the writ petitions are rejected and the amendment made as per Annexure "N" dated 18/09/1993 by introduction of Rule 18A to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Cadre, and Recruitment) Regulations, 1993 ("Regulations", for short) are upheld and the State Government Order dated 16/02/1994 and the order of the Board dated 16/05/1994 as well as the -: 5 :- second Final Gradation List and other consequential orders are upheld.
2. Since the learned Single Judge has narrated the facts leading up to the filing of the writ petition in detail, it would be convenient to summarise the same. The first respondent - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [hereinafter, referred to as the "Board" for the sake of brevity], was constituted on 21/09/1974. The initial staff of the Board was primarily drawn from various Government Departments, including Public Works Department on the basis of deputation. Respondent Nos.3 to 8, who were initially recruited as Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department and with their consent were deputed to the services of the Board as Assistant Engineers and later they were re-designated as Assistant Environmental Officers ('AEOs', for short).
3. Petitioner Nos.5 and 7 who are the appellants herein were directly recruited to the services of the Board -: 6 :- during the years 1984-85 as Assistant Engineers were also re-designated as AEOs. Thereafter, their services were to be regularised with the condition that as and when absorption of the Deputationists took place, the total length of service would be taken in a particular cadre in the services of the Government and the Board for the purpose of fixation of the seniority on the date of the absorption. At the 57th meeting of the Board held on 31/04/1987 it was resolved that some of the Officers/Officials of the Public Works Department and Health and Family Service Departments, who were working on deputation basis in the services of the Board must be absorbed and accordingly, a Circular dated 28/05/1987 was issued calling upon the Deputationists to exercise their option for absorption on a one-time basis and seniority was to be fixed on consideration of the total length of service in the Government as well as in the Board. All the six respondent officers exercised their option to be absorbed in the Board's Service. On the basis -: 7 :- of the recommendations of the Review Committee, the Chairman of the Board by his letter dated 27/02/1988 requested the Chief Engineer (C and B) for acceptance of the absorption proposal, so that further steps for absorption of the Deputationists in to Board Service could be taken which was duly accepted. At that stage, some of the Assistant Engineers, who were recruited by and working in the Board, had filed W.P.No.20739/1989, contending that the absorption of the Deputationists would affect their service conditions. This Court by an interim order stayed all proceedings with regard to absorption of Deputationists in the services of the Board. During the pendency of the Writ Petition on 13/05/1991, the Board published the provisional gradation list of AEOs as on 01/01/1991, wherein it excluded the names of the Deputationists, which was objected to by the latter, as the Board had not assigned them any ranking and therefore, had requested the Board to redo the list by including their names in the provisional gradation list of AEOs. The said -: 8 :- claim of the Deputationists was however rejected and the Board finalised the provisional gradation list and published the same by a Notification dated 31/05/1991.
4. When the matter stood thus, the Secretary to the Public Works Department by his order dated 27/08/1991 accepted the request of the Chief Engineer, regarding absorption of services of the respondent Nos.3 to 8 in the services of the Board. However, by then, the same was objected to by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Department of Science, Technology, Ecology, Environment and Energy who, by his communication dated 21/05/1992, directed repatriation of the Deputationists to the Parent Department on or before 24/05/1992. Accordingly, the Chairman of the Board relieved the respondent Nos.3 to 8 by order dated 23/05/1992 and repatriated the Deputationists to the parent department. This was the subject matter of W.P.Nos.16138-16144/1992 filed before this Court by the Deputationists. By virtue of the interim order passed in -: 9 :- the writ petitions, the Deputationists continued to discharge their duties in the services of the Board as the AEOs.
5. The Board had in the meanwhile, framed the Regulations for regulating the method of recruitment, terms and conditions of service of officers and employees of the Board. But the State Government while approving the said Regulations, approved it, subject to the deletion of the provisions made for absorption of Deputationists. On the approval of the State Government, the Regulations were given effect from 02/09/1992. Thereafter, the Board by its meeting held on 02/12/1992 passed a Resolution promoting 16 Assistant Engineers excluding some of the petitioners herein to the next promotional cadre of Deputy Environmental Officers, with retrospective effect, subject to final orders to be made by this Court in the petitions filed by them as well as the Deputationists. Subsequently, by a communication dated 12/04/1993, the Board made a request to the State Government to approve its -: 10 :- Resolution to incorporate Regulation 18A to the Regulations and provide opportunity for Deputationists, who were in the services of the Board right from its inception as a one time measure. The same was approved by the State Government by order dated 25/08/1993. The Board by its meeting held on 28/08/1993 resolved to adopt the amendment to the Regulations as approved by the State Government and notified the same by its official memorandum dated 18/09/1993. The newly inserted Regulation enabled the absorption of Deputationists who had already opted for Board Service in equivalent cadre. In view of this amendment, this Court disposed of W.P.No.20739/1989.
6. On the strength of Regulation 18A, the Board by its meeting held on 12.01.1994 resolved to absorb respondent Nos. 3 to 8 who were working on deputation from the Public Works Department into the service of the Board as regular employees in the interest of public service, with full seniority from the date of entry into -: 11 :- service. The said Resolution was approved by the State Government by its order dated 12.02.1994. At that stage, the Officers Association and some of its members filed a batch of writ petitions, out of which these appeals arise calling in question the validity of the Regulation 18A, the Government Order dated 16.02.1994, permitting the Board to absorb the services of the respondent - officers with full seniority from the date of entry into service. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Board passed a Resolution dated 04.05.1994 to absorb the services of the respondent-officers into the Board's service and the same was given effect to by an order dated 16.05.1994. On the strength of the said Order, the Board modified the list of AEOs notified on 13/05/1991 and reissued a modified provisional gradation list dated 10.06.1994 assigning interse seniority to the absorbed officers by taking into consideration their total length of service in Government as well as in the Board. Objections were filed to the said provisional gradation list by the -: 12 :- petitioners and others, objecting to the ranking assigned to them and the higher ranking assigned to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the seniority list of AEOs of the Board from a retrospective date, 13/05/1991. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Board by Notification dated 21/04/1995 also promoted some of the absorbed Deputationists to the cadre of Deputy Environmental Officers with the retrospective date. The Board at its 109th meeting held on 03.06.1995 ratified the action of the Chairman of the Board giving retrospective promotion to AEOs to the cadre of Deputy Environmental Officers and the same was notified by the Board by notification dated 15/16.06.1995.
7. In the connected writ petitions disposed of by the Learned Single Judge viz., W.P.Nos.18251/1998 c/w W.P.Nos.20929-20931/1998, the final gradation list of AEOs issued by the Board dated 16.03.1995 and the notification dated 15/16.06.1995 reviewing the promotions effected to the cadre of Deputy Environmental -: 13 :- Officers/Environmental Officers of the Board were also challenged.
8. In the writ petitions, the challenge to the validity of the Regulation 18A was not pursued. The issues that were considered by the learned Single Judge was with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the provisional and final seniority list of the AEOs prepared and published by the Board on 10/06/1994 and 16/03/1995, in substitution of the earlier final gradation list of AEOs, who were directly recruited in the Board's service published by notification dated 13/05/1991 as also the retrospective promotions given to Respondent Nos.3 to 8. The grievance of the petitioners was that Board could not have included the names of the Deputationists who were subsequently absorbed into the Board's service either in the provisional or final gradation list of Assistant Engineers/AEOs as on 01/01/1991 i.e., with retrospective effect. It was also contended that the petitioners were promoted as Deputy Environmental -: 14 :- Officers as early as on 28.06.1991 and therefore, their names could not have been included in the modified provisional and final gradation list of AEOs i.e., in a lower cadre. Therefore, they assailed the same as being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the Deputationists absorbed in to the service of the Board were not entitled for counting their past service and other service benefits, but that it could be done only with reference to their date of absorption into Board's service and not from any anterior date. Therefore, they contended that the grant of seniority to the Deputationists with retrospective effect i.e., at a date prior to their absorption into services of the Board was arbitrary and illegal.
9. Before the learned Single Judge, the Board had contended that it had the right to determine the service conditions of the employees including the seniority on the basis of the Regulations, which would also include the seniority of the Deputationists absorbed into the services -: 15 :- of the Board. That when an employee is working on a deputation basis is absorbed into service, the services rendered in the parent department must be protected. The counsel for the private respondents i.e., the Deputationists also endorsed this submission and contended that the Board was justified in taking into consideration their past services rendered in the parent department while assigning their ranking in the seniority list. The learned Single Judge considered the validity of the modified provisional and final gradation list published by the Board as well as the retrospective promotion according to the private respondents to a higher cadre and held as under:
"56. The Regulations of the Board does not authorise the Chairman of the Board to effect retrospective promotions. Therefore, the promotions effected by him promoting respondent Nos.3 to 8 to the next higher cadre could not have been sustained by this Court, but for the ratification of his action by the Board in its subsequent meetings. In the -: 16 :- instant case, the Board by its order dated 16/5/1994 had absorbed the services of the Deputationists in its service and in that, had made it clear that the past services of the deputationsits in the parent department requires to be taken note of while fixing the seniority of Deputationists in the borrowed department. To give full effect to the orders made by the Board, the Chairman of the Board, after fixing the seniority of Deputationists in the borrowed department has effected the promotions of the absorbed Officers to the next higher cadre. Since his action is ratified by the Board, it would relate back to the act ratified. Therefore, it must be held that the retrospective promotion of respondent Nos.3 to 8 is neither illegal nor invalid.
57. In view of the above, petitions require to be rejected. Accordingly, they are rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs Ordered accordingly."
The same is assailed in these writ appeals. -: 17 :-
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that even in the absence of there being any Regulation for the absorption of deputed staff into the services of the Board, the Board had undertaken an exercise of absorbing the Deputationists who were working in the Board as AEOs and thereby prepared the final gradation list, which was objected to by the petitioners and other similarly placed Engineers. It was only in the year 1993 that the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations were amended by inserting Regulation 18A and thereafter, a modified provisional gradation list of AEOs was issued on 10/06/1994 as on 01/01/1991. The same could not have been issued in view of the fact that the power to absorb the Deputationists to the services of the Board was conferred only pursuant to the amendment of the Regulations by insertion of Regulation 18A. -: 18 :- Therefore, any absorption has only a prospective effect from that date onwards and that any gradation list issued taking into consideration an anterior position i.e., prior to the Regulation was void. He therefore, contended that the subsequent issuance of the final gradation list which was contrary to the earlier final gradation list issued prior to the insertion of Regulation 18A is also void as the Deputationists could not have been considered to be in the services of the Board until the order of absorption and consequently their seniority could be considered only from the date of absorption i.e., 16.05.1994. Hence, the respondent-officers could not be considered to be absorbed in the services of the Board as on 01/01/1991. In effect, it was contended that the past services of the respondent-officers rendered in the parent department as well as in the Board till the date of absorption could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of interse seniority with the regularly recruited engineers of the Board.
-: 19 :-
12. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.Mohan Reddy v. E.A.A. Charles & others [(2001) SCC 433)].
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and contended that the absorption of the services of Deputationists with prospective effect would entail adverse consequence inasmuch as the past services of the Deputationists would then be wholly ignored. The absorption order would imply that the absorbed employee has always been in the services of the Department into which he has been absorbed, thereby the past services of the absorbed employee in the parent department as well as in the department to which he is absorbed have to be protected and accordingly, ranking of the absorbed employee has to be given keeping in mind past services of the absorbed employee. They therefore, contended that -: 20 :- the writ appeals are without any merit and the same may be dismissed.
14. The expressions "deputation" and "absorption" are well understood in service jurisprudence. A Government servant or official on deputation to another post would not lose his post which he holds substantively. Also the services rendered in the post to which a person is deputed is considered as equivalent to the services rendered in the original post. Absorption into service of an official is a formal entry into a particular post which a person has been holding in a different department and is brought to that post either on deputation or by transfer and subsequently absorbed in that post whereby he loses his lien in his parent department.
15. In the instant case, initially on 28/05/1987 the Board issued a Circular with regard to the absorption of the Government officers and officials working in the Board on permanent basis as a one-time measure. The -: 21 :- said Circular stated that the officers should give their options for absorption in the services of the Board and on examination of the option and on the basis of the desirability and suitability by a Review Committee, the same would be subject to the final review of the Board. The Circular also stated that, that on a one-time basis, the absorption of officers deputed to various Government Departments into the services of the Board would be made. By a Government Order dated 27/08/1991, respondent Nos.3 to 8 were absorbed into services of the Board after they had exercised their option for the same. However since another Department of the Government viz., Department of Science, Technology, Ecology, and Environment, under whose jurisdiction the Board functions, by letter dated 21/05/1992 stated that the absorption was not valid and that the absorbed employees must be relived from services, an order for repatriation of all the Assistant Engineers working on deputation in the Board was passed on 23/05/1992. The same was -: 22 :- assailed by the Deputationists in a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court.
16. Thereafter, the Regulations of 1992 were amended by insertion of Regulation 18A, the said Regulation reads as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations, the Board may absorb the deputed staff who have already opted for Board service, in an equivalent cadre."
On the strength of the said amendment, the Board sought the permission of the State Government with regard to the approval of the amendment with regard to the deputed staff who had already opted for Board's services in the equivalent cadre, by a communication dated 30/04/1993. The same was approved by the Government by a letter dated 26/08/1993 and it was notified by the Board on 18/09/1993. Thereafter, the State Government by order dated 16/02/1994 permitted the respondent Nos.3 to 8 to be absorbed in the Board's service with immediate effect -: 23 :- and the services rendered by the officers in the Public Works Department as well as in the Board was also taken into consideration and the seniority to be decided accordingly. Accordingly, the Board passed an order on 16/05/1994 according absorption of respondent Nos.3 to 8 into services of the Board following the conditions stipulated by the Government by order dated 16/02/1994 as by then, the said respondent had "already opted" for being absorbed into the services of the Board in terms of the Regulation 18A.
17. As a consequence, having regard to their terms and conditions of absorption, the Board amended the final gradation list issued on 13/05/1991, so that appropriate ranking of the absorbed employees could be given. In that regard, a fresh provisional gradation list was issued and after considering the objections, the final gradation list of AEOs was also issued and was also published, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 'T'. The list has been prepared having regard to the officers initial date of entry -: 24 :- into service. On a perusal of the said final gradation list, it becomes clear that the absorbed employees, that is respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein entered into service in their parent department even prior to the petitioners being recruited into the services of the Board. Having regard to the length of service of these respondents from when they initially entered into the parent department, the seniority has been fixed. The petitioners have joined service from the years 1984 onwards, whereas, the private respondents entered into service between the years 1973 to 1983. Having regard to their length of service, the ranking in the seniority list has been given which is in consonance with Regulation 18A which in effect has a retrospective effect, the validity of which was not pursued in the Writ Petitions.
18. No doubt when initially the final gradation list was issued in the year 1991 placing the petitioners in ranks below that of respondent Nos.3 to 8, there was no Regulation enabling the absorption of Deputationists into -: 25 :- the services of Board and therefore, the same may have been vitiated but with the incorporation of Regulation 18A, enabling the Board to absorb the services of the Deputationists, who had already opted for absorption as on the date Regulation was amended, infact, validated the earlier gradation list issued on 13/05/1991. Therefore, once again, the provisional gradation list was reissued taking into consideration the interse ranking of the absorbed Engineers and after inviting objections, the final gradation list was issued. The re-issuance of the fresh provisional gradation list is having regard to Regulation 18A and also the position of law that the period of service rendered in a post before deputation as well as the services rendered on deputation till the date of absorption cannot be ignored for calculating the total length of service for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits. This position of Law has been stated in several decisions of the Apex Court in MADHAVAN & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS reported in [1987 (4) SCC 566], in -: 26 :- K.ANJAIAH & OTHERS VS. K.CHANDRAIAH & OTHERS reported in [(1998) 3 SCC 218], In Re SI ROOPLAL VS. LTD GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI & OTHERS reported in [JT 1999(9) SC 597]. In the first of the above said decisions, the Apex Court also held as under:-
"It will be against all Rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service from the post from which he has been transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their preexisting total length of service in the parent department should be respected and protected by taking the same in to account in -: 27 :- determining their ranking in the new service cadre."
In Re SI Rooplal's Case, it has been held as under:-
"Any Rule, Regulation or Executive instruction which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by a Deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the Parent Department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative of Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down."
19. Therefore Regulation 18A categorically begins with a non-obstante clause and take into consideration the entire service of all deputed staff who had till the date of Regulation opted for the services of the Board. The mere fact that the said Regulation was incorporated by way of an amendment made in the year 1993 would not imply that the absorption though with effect from then onwards would obliterate all past services of the respondent officers till the said date. Thus amended -: 28 :- Regulation has in substance a retrospective effect. The date of absorption is critical only for the purpose of regularising an employee to the post to which he was initially deputed. That would not imply the deletion of past services of the Deputationist in the parent department or his services in the post of which he is deputed.
20. In the instant case, the Board was constituted in the year 1984 and essentially the services of the employees drawn from various Departments was taken till a regular recruitment in various cadres were made by the Board subsequently. Therefore, an option was given to the Deputationists with reference to absorption into the services of the Board. When once the Deputationists opted for absorption all concomitant conditions of absorption would have to follow including the assignment of interse seniority in the provisional as well as the final gradation list between the direct recruits and the absorbed employees, having regard to their length of service. -: 29 :- Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellants to the effect that the services of the absorbed employees from the date of absorption only could be counted is rejected. The judgment relied upon by the appellants is of no assistance to them as that is a case between direct recruits and promotees which is not so in this case. Merely because some of the petitioners were in the interregnum promoted as Deputy Environmental Engineers would not estop the Board from rectifying the final seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers issued on 13/05/1991, having regard to the insertion of Section 18A to the Regulations. On the other hand, in view of the rectification of the final seniority list taking into consideration the absorption of the Deputationists i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein, they would also be entitled to be promoted as Deputy Environmental Officers, having precedence over the petitioners who were of lower ranking in the modified seniority list. Therefore, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the promotions according to the respondent Nos.3 to 8 in the higher cadre was also justified.
-: 30 :-
21. In the result, there is no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed, without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE *mvs Index: Y/N