TANA KAYA TARA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/petitioner Tana Kaya Tara has filed a writ petition challenging the seniority list dated 1.11.2000 of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Contending that at the time of regularisation of ad-hoc appointment the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 9, viz. Tatung Jamoh, Ngampong Ngemu, T.T. Dhirkipa, Made Nalo, Dagyum Ango and Bengia Bojok respectively in the writ petition alongwith others, the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) conducted an interview in 1994 and prepared a merit list of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 alongwith others. But the merit assigned to them does not reflect in the final seniority list prepared by the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the respondents Nos. 4 to 9 have been shown as seniors to the petitioner contrary to the merit list prepared by APPSC.

(2.) The facts in brief are - the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are Graduate Engineers and have been directly appointed on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineers on different dates in the year 1988-89. Be more particular, petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis by order dated 22.12.89, whereas the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 30.9.88, respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 on 22.12.89 and respondent No. 9 on 18.5.88. Before their appointment no competitive examination was held nor they faced any selection process. But before regularisation of their services the APPSC conducted viva-voce and on the basis of viva-voce recommended regularisation of their services in order of merit. On the recommendation of the APPSC, the State Government issued a common formal order appointing them on regular basis vide order dated 14th August, 1995, whereunder the petitioner/appellant has been figured at serial No. 8 while the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 figured at serial Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively. The name of respondent No. 9 was not figured in the common order of appointment, although the APPSC has recommended his name for appointment, since there was a criminal case pending against him. His substantive appointment was withheld and after being exonerated from the criminal charge, respondent No. 9 was appointed vide appointment letter dated 26.7.99 with effect from his initial date of appointment on ad-hoc basis i.e. 18.5.88.

(3.) The Government published a provisional seniority list vide memo dated 17.6.99, which was later on finalised vide memo dated 1.11.2000. In the said final seniority list so published the petitioner's name figured at serial No. 51 while the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have been shown at serial Nos. 38, 39, 47, 48, 50 and 36 respectively. In finalising the seniority list, the merit position assigned by the APPSC in its letter of recommendation has not been followed. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant that the State Government while publishing the final seniority list should have adhered to the merit list prepared by the APPSC at the time of regularisation of the service of the petitioner in order of merit.