AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veerender Singh Siradhana, J—Aggrieved of the final seniority list of Junior Engineer-I (E&M) as on 1st April, 2010, the petitioners have instituted the present writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s):--
"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the final seniority list dated 7.9.2010 may kindly be declared to be illegal and same may be quashed and set aside and it may be declared that the petitioners are entitled for their seniority with reference to order dated 7.4.2007.
(ii) by further an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to assign seniority to the petitioners of the post of Junior Engineer-I with reference to the order dated 7.4.07 and place them at appropriate place in the seniority list dated 7.9.10 along with other persons assigned seniority under experience quota candidates and above the direct recruitment quota candidates.
(iii) by further an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners.
(iv) Any other order which this Hon''ble Court considers expedient, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.
(v) The cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are: that the petitioners being in possession of qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering, submitted their application forms for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer-I/II in response to the advertisement (Annexure-1), which stipulated last date of submission of the application forms as 30th November, 2006. The petitioners being successful, were accorded appointment on the post of Junior Engineer-II (Electrical) as Probationer Trainee on fixed remuneration of Rs. 4,950/- (Rupees: Four thousand nine hundred and fifty), per month for a period of two years on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. After successful completion of the probation period of two years, the petitioners were to be accorded regular pay scale of Junior Engineer-I of Rs. 9300 - 34800 + 3500. As a consequence of decision taken by the Board of Directors in its 138th meeting held on 18th September, 2007; the petitioners, who were appointed as Junior Engineer-II (Electrical) Probationer Trainee vide order dated 7th April, 2007; and were in possession of the qualifications of BE/AMIE with 60% marks or more prior to the appointment, were further accorded appointment as Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) Probationer Trainee against unreserved category. The fixed remuneration @ Rs. 6,450/- (Rupees: Six thousand four hundred fifty) per month was accorded to them. After successful completion of Probationer Training, they were to be accorded regular pay scale of Junior Engineer-I, vide order dated 18th September, 2007, however, the petitioners were accorded notional benefit of remuneration from the date of joining as Junior Engineer-II Probationer Trainee to the date of issuance of the order i.e. 18th September, 2007. On 6th July, 2010, a tentative seniority list of Junior Engineer-I as on 1st April, 2010, was published. Representations were invited from aggrieved, if any, within 15 days. The petitioners submitted their representation on 9th July, 2010, for their placement in the tentative seniority list at Serial Number 336 onwards specifically referring to the orders dated 18th September, 2007 and 15th February, 2008, claiming benefit of seniority as Junior Engineer-I with effect from 7th April, 2007. According to the petitioners, their placement in the seniority list ought to have been at Serial Number 221 and onwards. The respondents vide order dated 7th September, 2010, published the final seniority list of Junior Engineer-I (E&M) as on 1st April, 2010, maintaining the position of the petitioners as was indicated in the tentative seniority list.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prahlad Singh, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the petitioners were successful in the recruitment process initiated by the respondents vide advertisement Annexure-1, which specifically stipulates that 60% of the vacancies out of 445, were meant for candidates for experience quota, which according to the petitioners, were 267 out of 445. Learned counsel referring to order dated 18th September, 2007 (Annexure-3) emphasized that the respondents realized their mistake and issued order dated 18th September, 2007, according appointment to the petitioners as Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) Probationer Trainee for the petitioners were in possession of the required educational qualifications of BE/AMIE with 60% marks or more prior to the appointment.
According to the learned counsel, the respondents intending to confer all the admissible benefits to Junior Engineer-I, allowed the fixed remuneration @ Rs. 6,450/-, which is admissible during the period of probation to a candidate appointed as Junior Engineer-I to be followed by regular pay scale of Junior Engineer-I in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000-175-8700. It is further reflected from the order dated 18th September, 2007, that the respondents were allowed notional benefits of remuneration from the date of joining as Junior Engineer-II Probationer Trainee upto the date of the issuance of the order i.e. 18th September, 2007 while maintaining other terms and conditions of the appointment order dated 7th April, 2007. Therefore, the petitioners ought to have been accorded benefit of seniority of Junior Engineer-I from the date of joining as Junior Engineer-II. Since the representations were not considered in the correct perspective and the petitioners have been declined proper placement in the impugned seniority list, the action of the respondents has been assailed by the petitioners in the present writ application for discrimination and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit principally admitting the factual matrix of the case. However, while resisting the claim of the petitioners for seniority reckoning the date of initial appointment as 7th April, 2007, on the post of Junior Engineer-I, it is pleaded that certain posts in the quota of open competition remained vacant, as such, were subsequently converted into post to be filled up by experienced candidates, and therefore, the petitioners were adjusted against these very posts and subsequently designated as Junior Engineer-I, vide orders dated 18.9.2007 and 15.2.2008.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that it was on account of humanitarian ground considering the representations of the petitioners, the order dated 18th September, 2007 was made in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors, according the petitioners benefit of remuneration of the post of Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) Probationer Trainee. On being queried by the Court as to what was the definite number of posts, which have become available later on appointment of the petitioners? Learned counsel was not in a position to furnish any information.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.
Indisputably, the petitioners were successful in response to the advertisement by which the respondents initiated the process for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer-I/II. The petitioners were accorded appointment vide order dated 7th April, 2007, on the post of Junior Engineer-II (Electrical) as Probationer Trainee on fixed remuneration of Rs. 4,590/- (Rupees: four thousand five hundred ninety) per month. However, subsequently, in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors in its 138th meeting held on 18th September, 2007, the petitioners, who were appointed as Junior Engineer-II, were accorded appointment as Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) as Probationer Trainee for they were in possession of the qualifications of BE/AMIE with 60% marks or more prior to the appointment. From the order dated 18th September, 2007, it is further reflected that the respondents had all the intentions to accord all the benefits of the post of Junior Engineer-I to the petitioners, as would be reflected from the fact that fixed remuneration of Rs. 6,450/- (Rupees: six thousand four hundred fifty) per month was accorded to the petitioners on notional basis for the period from the date of joining as Junior Engineer-II Probationer Trainee until the date of issuance of the order i.e. 18th September, 2007. The fact that thereafter the petitioners were accorded the fixed remuneration @ Rs. 6,450/- (Rupees: six thousand four hundred fifty) as Probationer Trainee, is disputed by the respondents.
From a glance of advertisement Annexure-1, it is reflected that total vacancies of Junior Engineer-I/II (Electrical), were notified as 445, out of which 60% were to be filled up from experience quota and 40% from open competition. The ratio of Junior Engineer-I/II has been indicated as 3:2, and number of vacancies out of 445, has been indicated as 267 being 60% of the vacancies for appointment from amongst eligible candidates of experience quota and 106 (40%) were meant for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer-I (Decree Holder), and 161 posts were to be filled up as Junior Engineer-II (Diploma Holder). The names of the candidates appointed vide order dated 7th April, 2007, are indicated from Serial Number 162 (Nidhi Goyal) and concluded at Serial Number 220 (Suresh Kumar). The candidates, who were appointed against 40% from competition quota commences from Serial Number 221.
Further, the fact that only 58 candidates were appointed in experience quota, as against 106 posts, and 48 vacancies remained vacant, has also not been denied by the respondents though time was sought for this purpose on 10th July, 2015.
Having considered the admitted factual matrix and the materials available on record, the respondents could not justify the denial to the placement of the petitioners in the seniority list, as claimed under the relief clause.
On 17th February, 2014, while disposing of 3rd stay application in the backdrop of the promotions made in pursuant to the order dated 23rd January, 2014, the same were made subject to the final outcome of the writ application. Accordingly, the petitioners will be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of revision of their placement in the seniority list.
For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
In the result, the respondents are directed to assign proper seniority placement to the petitioners in the seniority list of the post of Junior Engineer-I, reckoning the order of initial appointment dated 7th April, 2007, as initial date of appointment. The exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.