M B HIREGOUDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The controversy which we are required to resolve in this appeal by special leave is regarding the appellant's seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 to 7. The factual background which has given rise to this controversy, briefly stated, is as under: In the year 1966 posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) were created in the Department of Mines and Geology (Ground Water Surveys and Drilling Unit) of the State of Karnataka. The appellant who was then working as a Rigman in the Drilling Unit of the Departmerit was appointed Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the scale of Rs. 200-375 on one of the said posts by an order dated 14th August, 1967 issued by the Director of the department. Subsequently, he was regularly recruited through the State Public Service Commission in the said post w.e.f. 4th May, 1970. However, even though the Director had requested the State Government to frame Recruitment Rules for the newly created post immediately after its creation, the Recruitment Rules were not finalised till the issuance of a Notification dated 26th June, 1973. Before the appellant was regularly recruited through the State Public Service Commission in the year 1970 the Director had apprised the Government of the action which he proposed to take to fill up the post. The appointment order was issued after the Public Service Commission had advertised the post and had selected persons for appointment to the said posts. The appellant was initially appointed on probation for one year and on his satisfactorily completing the probation period he was continued in service and was later confirmed in the said post by an order dated 13th June, 1974 w.e.f. 29th September, 1972.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 entered service as Drillers in 1964-65. The appellant and the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted as Assistant Drilling Engineers by the Director's order dated 16th December, 1974, The Office Order No. 676/74-75 shows tha the appellant and one another were working as Junior Engineers at the relevant time whereas respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were working as Drillers before their promotions as Assistant Drilling Engineers. The State Government did not approve of the Director's action in promoting the appellant since he was a local candidate and directed that he be reverted. However, no such reversion took place. The State Government also did not take any further action. The appellant was shown senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in the said cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineers. The appellant was subsequently promoted by the State Government to the next higher post of Drilling Engineer in 1980 and further as Chief Drilling Engineer in 1984 which post he was holding at the date when his seniority came to be disturbed. The appellant was throughout shown senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 till the revised provisional seniority list in regard to the cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineers was published on 31 st December, 1987. Since objections were invited the appellant objected to his being shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 but to no avail. Even in the final seniority list dated 4th May, 1989 he was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were shown in both the provisional and final seniority list at Serial Nos. 1 to 5 whereas the appellant was shown at Serial No. 6. Thus, for the first time, since his regular appointment in the year 1970, he was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 under the provisional seniority list issued in 1987 and the final seniority list issued in 1989. The appellant, therefore, challenged the provisional seniority list as well as the final seniority list by an Application No. 2564 of 1989 preferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 3rd September, 1990 rejected his application holding that his initial entry into service as a Junior Engineer was itself irregular and since he did not have the requisite experience of three years as a regular incumbent he was not qualified to be promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Drilling Engineer because his regular employment could only be related from the date of framing of the Recruitment Rules for the cadre which came to be notified on 23rd August, 1973. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the service of the appellant from 4th May, 1970 to 23rd August, 1973 could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining his. inter se seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 to 7. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, has approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.