State of Uttarakhand and Others vs Vinod Kumar Virdi and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Despite service upon the respondents none appears on their behalf. The applicants before the Tribunal, namely, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 became Assistant Engineers on being promoted from the posts of Junior Engineers in the year 1999, whereas respondent Nos. 6 to 11 were promoted from the posts of Junior Engineers to the posts of Assistant Engineers in the year 1998. The respondent Nos. 6 to 11 were accorded officiating charge of Executive Engineers. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 accordingly approached the Tribunal and contended that since they are senior to the respondent Nos. 6 to 11, the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 could not be given officiating charge of Executive Engineers without affording similar opportunity to them. This contention has been accepted by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner disclosed that the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 having had become Assistant Engineers prior to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 were given charge of Executive Engineers, before such charge was given to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The rule of law, including various judgments rendered by this Court as noted by the Tribunal, made it absolutely clear that when an officiating charge is proposed to be given, the same should be given to the senior most, unless he is otherwise not "fit" or suitable. In accordance with seniority rules applicable to the cadre, the seniority is fixed when each of the respondents joined the service as Junior Engineers. Admittedly, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are senior to the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 in the cadre of Junior Engineers. Inasmuch as all the respondents have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers, while considering their inter se seniority, in accordance with the rules governing their service conditions, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 should be treated to be senior to the respondent Nos. 6 to 11. That being the situation and it having not come on record that any of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was "unfit" or "unsuitable" for being assigned the responsibility of In charge Executive Engineers, assigning of such responsibility upon the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 before assigning similar responsibility upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was inappropriate, as has been held by the Tribunal and being ad idem with the reasoning given by the Tribunal, we dismiss this writ petition.

Interim order vacated.