KABANG LEGO Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the assignment of seniority to the respondent No. 3 over him.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was first appointed as Junior Medical Officer with effect from 4. 3. 1985. The formal order of his appointment was issued on 12. 4. 1988. While the petitioner was in service as such, the Annexure-B, advertisement, was issued inviting applications for filling up of certain posts of Specialists under the Health and Family Welfare Department. The advertisement included five posts of Surgical Specialists and one post of ENT Specialist. The petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Surgical Specialists and he appeared in a selection held on 21. 8. 1988 in New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and considering the candidatures offered by various candidates call letters were issued and altogether 15 candidates appeared in the interview. The respondent No. 3 did not apply for the post. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents selected seven persons in various disciplines and in the surgical category two persons including the petitioner were selected for appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed by the Annexure-D, order dated 22. 4. 1988. However, such appointment was stated to be on ad hoc basis.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the respondent No. 3 was appointed on 23. 3. 1988 without any selection. A copy of his order of appointment is available in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 and the same has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the counter-affidavit. He was also appointed on ad hoc basis stipulating that he would require to serve in Arunachal Pradesh for a period of five years as per the terms and conditions of the Bond executed by him. Thus, while it is the case of the petitioner that although he was appointed by Annexure-D, order dated 22. 4. 1988 on ad hoc basis but such appointment being pursuant to the regular selection, he is entitled to count his seniority with effect from 22. 4. 1988. His further case is that although the respondent No. 3 was appointed one month prior to the petitioner, but such appointment being admittedly not pursuant to any regular selection, he is not entitled to count his seniority from the initial date of appointment, i. e. , 29. 3. 1988.