Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that facts indicate that the petitioners' appointment cannot be deemed to be an appointment in the same transaction. The last appointment in the same transaction of general category candidate was appointment of Rajesh Kumar Mishra. Posts against which petitioners are finally appointed, were advertised through different advertisement i.e. advertisement No. 1 of 1988, 53 of 1988 and 1 of 1994. Last 72 posts in the reserved category occurring prior to 31.12.1987, though earlier advertised through Advertisement No. 93 of 1985, subsequently became part and parcel of Advertisement no. 1 of 1988 and another advertisement. Since these reserved vacancies could not be filled by reserved category candidates, finally they were de- reserved and the petitioners being general category candidates, were appointed. Petitioners were appointed in subsequent transaction of the recruitment, as such their appointment cannot be considered in the same transaction. In fact, none of these circulars provide for preparation of gradation list on the basis of marks position-cum-seniority position as prepared by the BPSC. Clause 3 (i) © of 1972 circulars, contrary to the submissions of the petitioners' counsel, provides that seniority of direct recruits shall be according to their respective position as recorded by the competent authority at the time of their first appointment. So far ad-hoc or earlier appointment to the post is concerned, that is not to be considered for determining inter-se seniority. Seniority shall be drawn on the basis of the date of appointment in the respective cadre. Petitioners' assertion that list of recommendation by the BPSC to the State Government should be considered for determination of seniority is unsupported by any statutory or legal provision. The legal provision as arises in the rules for determination of seniority is the date of entry of an incumbent in the cadre. Inter-se seniority, can be decided, following any other principle, only when rule either prohibits or permits otherwise. The date of substantive appointment can only be the basis for reckoning inter-se seniority. Seniority cannot be reckoned retrospectively either from the date of occurrence of the vacancy or from the date of selection. Since petitioners were appointed much later to the respondents, their seniority can be considered from the date of appointment. There is no reason for holding that the gradation list dated 3.7.2008 has been prepared illegally, arbitrarily without considering the legal proposition in this regard.

19. Petitioner in CWJC No. 1768 of 2005 had initially filed the writ application for a direction to the respondents to regularize him on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1987 since, the date he is continuing on the post of ad- hoc basis. Prayer was subsequently amended by filing IA No. 6545 of 2007 as during the pendency of the writ application he was appointed on regular basis on the post of Assistant Engineer in Road Construction Department by notification dated 3.4.2007. The additional prayer made by the petitioner was to regularize his ad-hoc service and to fix his seniority in the gradation list granting benefit of ad-hoc appointment. He has also prayed for granting benefit of ACP as well as the other consequential benefits. This petitioner had been appointed against one left out vacancy, in view of non- joining of one person, whose name appeared at serial no.

20. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason to quash either whole or part of the seniority list dated 3.7.2008, whereby the petitioners have been relegated to lower position in the gradation list. There is no reason for holding that the gradation list has been prepared, ignoring Governments' statutory rules contained in order dated 12.12.1934, and ignoring the position of petitioners in the merit selection list prepared by the BPSC. In fact no such merit selection list was prepared by BPSC. In absence of any such merit list the respondent authorities were not bound to consider petitioners' position in that merit list for fixation of seniority. So far petitioners' appointment against earlier vacancy is concerned, that can not be a guiding factor for deciding their seniority, as appointment has not been made in the same transaction. There is no reason for petitioners' for claiming notional seniority. Since petitioners' were appointed completely in different transactions, date of their appointment will be relevant for reckoning their seniority. The State Government has already come with notification No. 6027 (S) dated 30.4.2008 which lays down the mode for fixing inter-se seniority in Clause 2(iv), which provides that if appointment from one panel is made in different years, then those appointees will be allotted seniority, according to specific years of their appointment, in accordance with merit.