N. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O SHRI. N. NARAYANAPPA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. Vs. THE KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.@RESPONDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of together as they involve the same issues. The facts briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) THE Petitioners are all graduates in Civil Engineering. They had joined the services of the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited (Hereinafter called the Corporation, for brevity) as Task Force Commanders. They were all initially appointed on a Consolidated Pay and only later were their services regularized. On their services being regularized they were placed on probation for a period of one year. Their names were arranged according to their ranking. The probationary period of service having been declared as satisfactory, they were also granted further promotions.

(3.) IT is seen from the material on record that whether the date on which Reddy has entered into service was 04.05.1984, as an Assistant Task Force commander and had been subsequently appointed as a Task Force Commander by an order dated 17.12.1984, by an unexplained order dated 27.05.1987, it has been directed that his services be regularized with effect from 17.12.1984. This has been subsequently sought to be held as an error requiring correction - notices in respect of which are the subject matter of the pending petition before the Gulbarga Circuit Bench as already stated above. But it is to be noticed that no other Task Force Commander had been granted this special statuseven though there were many who were similarly appointed but were regularized in service only much later, even as Reddy was initially. It is by a further order that he acquired the special place. The validity or otherwise of those events is, however, is to be gone into in his petition in WP 41212/2004. But since Reddy himself is aggrieved by other persons being given the benefit of Seniority from the date of their initial entry into service as sought to be complained in petitions before this bench, it would require the legal issue, namely, in the absence of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules as on the initial date of entry into service and subsequent regularization in service, whether for purposes of seniority, either the date of initial entry into service or the date of regularization, would be relevant.