KESHAVDEO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant was appointed as an Overseer (re-designated as Junior Engineer) on ad hoc basis in Public Works Department (for short P.W.D.), State of Uttar Pradesh on 17-7-1970 and was approved by the Public Service Commission, U. P. (for short the Commission) on 30-6-1973. The second appellant was directly appointed as Overseer substantively in the said department through the Commission on the same day. Both the appellants were holders of Diploma in Civil Engineering. In May, 1978 they passed an examination known as Associate Member of Institution of Engineer (India), Section A and B, equivalent to B. E. Degree. On 30-5-1979 the appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis. The said promotions were made within the quota of posts reserved for the promotees according to the relevant Service Rules by the Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of Secretary, P. W. D., Chief Engineer, P. W. D. and Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. The appointment orders stated that the promotion was being made to cope up with the work load in the Department since Assistant Engineers approved by the Commission were not available and that the promotions were only for a period of one year. Since then, the appellants have been working uninterruptedly on the post of Assistant Engineers.

(2.) Respondents 3 and 4 were selected through the Commission and appointed directly as Assistant Engineers in the P.W.D. by order dated 9-8-1979. The Commission held in the year 1980, an interview of some of the promotees to be considered for the post of Assistant Engineers. The appellants have a grievance that though their juniors were called for interview, they were not considered without any reason therefor. However that grievance is outside the scope of the present controversy. In the interview held in the year 1984, the appellants were also called and they were duly approved and selected by the Commission. Consequently, they were confirmed as Assistant Engineers.

(3.) In the meanwhile, one D. N. Saksena, who was an ad hoc promotee as Assistant Engineer in the year 1970 just like the appellants and approved by the Commission in the year 1980, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court namely W. P. No. 1536 of 1981, claiming seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of initial appointment and officiation on the said post. That writ petition was treated to be one in representative capacity and notice was given to all concerned through the newspapers. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld on 4-7-1989 the claim made by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition and held that the promotees should be assigned seniority from the date of continuous officiation and not from the date of approval by the Commission.