(1.) The petitioner put the final seniority list dated 1.11.2000 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under challenge in this writ petition contending, inter alia, that at the time of regularisation of the ad-hoc appointments of the petitioner and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 along with others, the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) conducted an interview in 1994 and according to the merit as has been assessed by the APPSC, a common formal appointment letter on regularisation of the ad-hoc services of the petitioner and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and others had been issued on 14.8.95 to the post of Assistant Engineer (E) and as such the seniority list ought to have been finalised in conformity with the order of appointment. But that was not done. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) The private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are graduate engineers and had been directly appointed on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineer(E) on different dates in 1988 and 89. Before their appointment, no competitive examination had been held in accordance with the related service rules nor they had faced any selection process. But, before regularisation of their services, the APPSC conducted interview/viva-voce test and on the basis of the result of the viva-voce test recommended the regularisation "in order of merit" wherein the petitioner's name has been figured at SI. No. 8 while the name of private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 figured at SI. Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 10 respectively. Acting upon the recommendation of the APPSC, the State Government issued a common formal order of regular appointment vide order dated 14.8.95 and in that common appointment letter, the name of the petitioner has been figured at SI. No. 8 while the name of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 figured at SI. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, but the name of respondent No. 9 was not figured therein and since 14.8.95, the petitioner as well as the private respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have been serving on substantive basis while the respondent No. 9 was not appointed substantively at that time. The Government published the provisional seniority list vide memo dated 17.6.99 and that the finalised vide letter dated 17.11.2000 and in the finally published seniority list, the petitioner's name has been figured at SI. No. 51 while the names of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have been placed at SI. Nos. 38,39, 47,48,50 and 36 respectively. In finalising the seniority list, the State respondents have not followed the merit position available in the letter of recommendation made by the APPSC. The petitioner should have been shown senior to the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9.
(3.) The State respondents filed the counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that as many as 17 graduate engineers had been appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (E) on ad-hoc basis against direct quote vacancies after constitution of the State Public Service Commission and for their regularisation, the related files of the incumbents had been placed before the Public Service Commission. The APPSC conducted a formal viva-voce test and thereafter recommended the regularisation and accordingly, the service of the petitioner, private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and others had been regularised by a common formal appointment letter. The draft seniority list was published against which some incumbents made representations contending, inter alia, that the initial dates of appointment of the respective candidates have been ignored while preparing the draft seniority list. The Government constituted a screening committee and on the recommendation of the screening committee, the seniority list has been finalised having regard to the date of initial appointment of the respective incumbents. Since the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 had been appointed earlier on ad-hoc basis, the weightage was given to the date of appointment in publishing the final seniority list.