JAGPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appeals challenge one com ­posite judgment rendered by a learned Sin ­gle Judge of this Court while dismissing three writ petitions, which were filed by the appellants in these three appeals. We have, accordingly, decided to dispose of all the three appeals by this judgment and order.

(2.) AT the time when the appellants were appointed as Junior Engineers in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works De ­partment of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Subordinate Engineers Service Rules, 1951 was in vogue. The said Rules did not authorize appointment of any of the appellants in the manner they were appointed. The said Rules authorized ap ­pointment of Junior Engineers from amongst only those people, who had been selected for being appointed as Junior En ­gineers by the Public Service Commission. The proviso to Clause (2) of Rule 17 of the said Rules, authorized appointment of Jun ­ior Engineers for a period not exceeding 12 months, only when an attempt had been made by the Commission to select people for being appointed as Junior Engi ­neers and when no such selected person is available for being appointed. Admittedly, at by before appointment of any of the ap ­pellants, no action was taken by the Public Service Commission to select people for being appointed as Junior Engineers.

(3.) IN terms of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the said Rules, seniority of the appellants was fixed. In one of the writ pe ­titions, there were four petitioners, whose appointments were vetted by the Public Service Commission subsequent to their ap ­pointment on ad hoc basis and the Public Service Commission approved their ap ­pointment and while doing so, gave them positions according to their merit. Those petitioners withdrew from the writ petitions accepting that their seniority has been fixed on the basis of their seniority as ought to have had been fixed. They are not before us as appellants. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there are two appellants, who are similarly circumscribed i.e. their cases too had been referred to the Commission and the Commission has ap ­proved their appointments. But according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, their seniority has not been fixed from the date of their initial appointment.