Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Engineer Grade-I vide order dated 09.12.1988 by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B) at Baghmara Division. Subsequently, the respondent also passed professional examination in Civil Engineering and Accounts held on 22 nd October 2005 under the supervision of the PWD (R & B) Department, Shillong vide notification No. PW/Admn-28/97/226 dated 17.03.2006.

3. In the year 2007 the MPSC issued an advertisement for recruitment of Junior Engineers (Civil) and vide the letter No. MPSC/D-32/1/2005-06/61 dated 1st August 2007, the respondent was also called for interview by the MPSC, but he failed to clear the interview, and thus, was not selected. The gradation list of Junior Engineers (Civil and mechanical) dated 1 st August 2007 was released. As per gradation list, most of the Work Charged Junior Engineers (Civil) were regularized, duly confirmed and included in the Cadre of Junior Engineers. However, the name of respondent/writ petitioner did not find mention in the list. Thus, he filed WP(C) No. 50(SH) 2008 before the Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench, for redressal of his grievances. The High Court vide order dated 28.03.2008 directed the writ appellant/State to consider the representation which the petitioner was granted liberty to submit.

3.2 That as per the Gradation List of Junior Engineer (Civil & Mechanical) dated 01.08.2007, most of the Work Charge Junior Engineers (Civil) have been regularized duly confirmed and included in the cadre of Junior Engineer but the Respondent/Petitioner was not included in the same.

3.3 That in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench vide order dated 28.03.2008, the Respondent/Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 07.04.2008 to the Chief Engineer PWD (Roads) for consideration of the Respondent/Petitioner's absorption as Junior Engineer but the same was not considered.

4.4 That the Gradation List of Junior Engineer (Civil) issued on 01.08.2007 is a complete inter-se Seniority List of regular Junior Engineers appointed by the Department based on the merit list as recommended by the M.P.S.C. The name of the Petitioner was not included in this particular list as his service is still under Work Charge Establishment and in a regular cadre.

4.5 That in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench vide Order dated 28.03.2008, the Appellants / Respondents had examined Respondent's/ Petitioner's case and vide Order dated 14.08. 2009 had rejected the representation of the Respondent/ Petitioner for reasons stated therein.

Besides, if the process of appointment of the respondent under the Work Charged establishment was not as per the due process of selection, then in that case, on what ground was he promoted to the post of Overseer/Junior Engineer Grade-I after a short gap of four months of his joining service? That apart, if the respondent/writ petitioner was not duly appointed Junior Engineer, then, perhaps, he could not have been allowed to clear the departmental examination in Engineering and Accountancy. As regards the ground for rejection of representation of the respondent/writ petitioner by saying that he was not regularly appointed by then Chief Engineer, and thus, the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) may create a bar to regularization of his services, Hon'ble the supreme Court has discussed and clarified the position in para 53 of the judgment as :