PERMANENT S SYIEM Vs. DAVID HAMMER MARWEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 Shri David Hammer Marwein as a writ petitioner, claimed seniority over appellants No. 1,2,3 and 4 who were respondents No. 4 to 8 in the writ petition. To appreciate the case of the writ petitioner which was projected before the learned Single Judge, reference to bare facts would be necessary.

(2.) Writ petitioner was appointed in the Government of Meghalaya service as Sub-Inspector of Supplies on 23.12.1977 under Rule 3(f) of Meghalaya Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation 1972. Pursuant to the order of appointment he had joined the service on 2.1.1978. It may be observed here that in view of the pay scale of the post in question, the said post was within the purview of the Public Service Commission (in short PSC). Since the recruitment had not been done by the PSC, the appointments were made by the Government of the petitioner and three others under Regulation 3(f) of the PSC Regulations mentioned above. In response to an advertisement for regular appointment the posts of Sub-Inspector of Supplies, the writ petitioner, private respondents and some others applied for the same. The writ petitioner and the private respondents were declared successful and in the merit list which was prepared by the PSC and was sent to the State Government on 22.6.79, name of the writ petitioner was appearing at serial No. 13 whereas the name of the appellants (private respondents in the writ petition) appeared at serial Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8 and 10. On receiving the communication from the PSC, the State Government issued order of appointment on 14.2.80 appointing respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 before the writ Court as Sub-Inspector of Supplies. Other private respondents in the writ petition as also the writ petitioner were issued appointment on 6.6.80. However, so far as the writ petitioner was concerned, he was made regular vide order dated 6.6.80 with effect from 22.6.79 (the date of the recommendation of the PSC). The letter dated 6.6.80 giving retrospective regularisation to the writ petitioner reads as under:-

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.