NEHRU LOCHUNG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to set aside the Orders dated 17.8.2009 and 19.8.2009, passed by the Superintending Engineer (Coord), APEC-1, Naharlagun, whereby the said authority has appointed respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 as Khalasis. At the same time, the petitioner is also praying for directing the respondents to consider his appointment to a suitable post as work-charged employee, adhering to the seniority list of casual staff.

(2.) HEARD Mr. T. Gyadi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Ms M. Tang, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The private respondents were represented by Mr. D. Boje, learned counsel. I have also perused the pleadings of both the parties.

(3.) AT the same time, the Seniority Lists also do not show that the respondents have better claims over the writ petitioner. To consider the rival claims and also to examine whether the State respondents had actually picked up respondent Nos. 4 to 7 dehors to the seniority and in violation of the procedure of giving public employment it would be just and proper to reproduce the standing of the writ petitioner and the private respondents in their respective trades in the following chart: