TRILOCHAN PUNETHA Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. Since there is a common question of law and fact involved in all the petitions, therefore, all these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE main controversy is in between the Adhoc Junior Engineers (hereinafter referred as 'adhoc J. Es.), who were ap pointed by the State Government pursu ant to the advertisement in the year 1983 and were regularized from the date of their initial appointments under the U. P Regularization of Adhoc Appointments Rules, 1979 on 14-02-1990 and 27-07-1990 and the Directly Recruited Junior Engineers (here-in-after as 'direct Recruits'), who were appointed through the Public Serv ice Commission after the regularization of Adhoc J. Es.

(3.) IT has been alleged by the claim petitioners (Direct Recruits) in the claim petition that the private respondents (Adhoc appointees) were appointed by the Government on Adhoc basis only for one year and they could not claim their regu larization on such posts. The initial appointments of Adhoc J. Es. were also chal lenged by the Direct Recruits before the Tri bunal by way of amendment in the month of September 2006. IT was further alleged that the appointments of the Adhoc J. Es. were illegal and de- hors the Rules. The Services of Adhoc J. E. s could not have been regularized under the Rules, 1979. The regularization of the Adhoc J. E. s also dehors the Rules. The seniority list issued by the State Government placing the Adhoc regularized J. E. s above the directly recruited candidates appointed through the Commission is violative of the Rules made in this behalf.