KARIK TAYENG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. B.K. Sarma, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.P. Sharma, learned Advocate for the Respondents.

(2.) The admitted position in this case is that Respondents No. 5 to 9 were appointed on adhoc basis since 1986 as Assistant Engineer and these petitioners were appointed in the year 1988. Subsequently in the year 1989 the service of the petitioner was regularised on the basis of the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, In the year 1994 the services of the Respondents No. 5 to 9 were regularised by the Department by Annexure-10, On 22.8.94. The admitted position is that the recommendation of these persons from the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission came in the year 1994, the earlier adhoc appointments of both the petitioner as well as Respondents No. 5 to 9 were purely adhoc inasmuch as they were not appointed on the basis of the Rules which were in the field at that point of time, that is, Annexure-3 to the writ application. That Rule is known as Arunachal Pradesh Administration (Public Works Department) Group-B post Recruitment Rules, 1983. That Rule provides for selection of the candidates by virtue of this rule through Selection Committee. It was not done. Thereafter in the year 1988 the A.P.P.S.C. by Annexure-4 was brought into existence.

(3.) Be that as it may the admitted position is that the petitioner was regularised earlier than the Respondents No. 5 to 9 and the respondents cannot be senior to him as that will be against the rule. Shri Sharma in support of the contention places reliance on two decisions reported in 1996(1) S.C.C. page-521 Chief, Naval Staff and Another, Appellants -Vs- G. Gopalkrishna Piliai ;and Others, Respondents) wherein in paragraph- 4, it has been pointed out as follows :-