S RAMA MURTHY Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution, raise a short, but an important question relating to the relative seniority of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 80. The matter arises in this way: (The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary Junior Engineers in the Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board'). By an industrial award dt.17th Octr, 1967, they were entitled to have their services absorbed into the permanent cadre. Accordingly, with effect from 26th May, 1968 they were absorbed as permanent candidates against the existing vacancies. On 7th Novr, 1967, respondents 2 to 80 were appointed as probationary Junior Engineers. In Novr, 1969, their services were regularised after the period of satisfactory completion of probation. The Board while preparing the Gradation List dt.17th Sepr 1969, ranked the petitioners below respondents 2 to 80. The same was repeated in the latest Gradation List dt.5th April 1976. The contention of the petitioners was that they should have been ranked above respondents 2 to 80 since they were regularly recruited against clear vacancies earlier to the regularisation of the said respondents; whereas for the Board and also for respondents 2 to 80 it was contended to the contrary. The decision on this question turns on the principles to be followed for determining the relative seniority of a permanent incumbent and a probationer in a common cadre of service. The rival contentions could be resolved only after reference to the relevant provisions in (i) The Mysore State Electricity Board Employees . (Probation) Rules, 1960 (shortly 'called 'the Probation Rules'), (ii) The Mysore State Electricity Board Employees (Seniority) Rules, 1960 (briefly called 'the Seniority Rules'), and (ii) The Mysore State Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations (called shortly as ' the Service Regulations').

(2.) Before I refer to the relevant provisions of the above Rules, it may be necessary to state a few more facts. After the Award dt.17th Octr 1967, the petitioners along with several others were screened and selected in terms of the Award and were absorbed against existing vacancies with effect from 26th May 1968. Respondents 2 to 80 were recruited as Junior Engineers on 7th Novr 1967. Their appointment was on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of their reporting for duty. During the period of probation, they were allowed to draw Rs.250 p.m being the minimum pay of the posit in addition to the allowances admissible as per rules. The appointment was subject to the Service Reglns of the Board, the Cadre and Recrt. Rules of the Board issued from time to time, and the CCA Rules in force. Their inter se seniority has been determined strictly in the order of merit in accordance with the rankings fixed by the appointing authority in the order of appointment. On 29th July, 1970, the Chief Engineer, Electricity (General) of the Board issued an official memorandum declaring that respondents 2 to 80 have completed their probationary period satisfactorily and qualified in passing the departmental tests prescribed and regularising their services with effect from the dates noted against their names. Different dates have been given against different Junior Engineers. By and large, most of them have been regularised with effect from Novr 1969, and only a couple of them have been regularised from December 1969.

(3.) On 17th Sepr 1969, the Board prepared a provisional Gradation List of Graduate Junior Engineers (Electrical), with an opportunity to the aggrieved officials to make their representations. In that list, the petitioners were ranked below respondents 2 to 80. Challenging the validity of those rankings, the petitioners along with two other Junior Engineers approached this Court with applications under Art.226 of the Constn in WPs.3619 and 1464 of 1970. When those petitions came up for final hearing on 4th Sepr 1973, I thought that those petitions were premature as the petitioners therein had an opportunity to make representations against their provisional rankings. I, therefore, dismissed those petitions with liberty to them to make representations to the Board. In accordance with the observation made thereunder, the petitioners made representation to the Board to revise the Gradation List and assign them rankings above respondents 2 to 80. But the Board did not take any action.