ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION IFFCO Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The perpetual rivalry for seniority in service between the direct recruits and promotees has once more engaged in the attention of this Court for several days. The question of seniority between the direct recruits and promotees have finally been settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1977) 3 SCR 775 corresponding to AIR 1977 SC 2051 which has been kept alive either by direct recruits or by promotees. The events relevant for the case are spread over a long period and the position has been made more complicated by filing of case and counter cases by the parties. The position as now stands is that the controversy on legal question has been considerably narrowed down by different decisions of this High Court, but the relevant facts and issues regarding seniority between the direct recruits and promotees to be settled have multiplied by certain actions of the Government. The present set of writ petitions involve common question relating to fixation of seniority of certain Section Officers Grade-I appointed ad hoc/ temporary Assistant Engineers in the PWD of the Govt. of Manipur, vis-a-vis direct recruits in the category of Assistant Engineers appointed regularly according to rules in the Public Works Department (PWD) of the State Government.

(2.) The question has been raised by the ad hoc appointees who were regularised subsequently by the State Govt. from a date subsequent to the date of their ad hoc appointment. The ad hoc appointees filed numerous writ petitions in the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court claiming regularisation of their services w.e.f. the date of their ad hoc appointment in the post of Assistant Engineers. These writ petitions were allowed by the High Court and the High Court in different cases directed the State Govt. to regularise the services of the promotee ad hoc A.Es. w.e.f. the date of their ad hoc appointment in the post of Asstt. Engineers. The Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court, however, kept open the matter of seniority of the ad-hoc promotee Assistant Engineers to the decided by the Govt. according to the seniority rules and in absence of such rules in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court. In these set of writ petitions, the promotee Asstt. Engineers whose services have been regularised as per order of the High Court claims their seniority from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment in the post of A.Es. and this claim of the promotee A.Es. has been opposed and challenged by the State respondent and by some of the direct recruits. The settled position is, therefore, that the services of the ad hoc promotee Asstt. Engineers have been first regularised by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC with effect from 28.3.87 and thereafter as per order of the High Court passed in various cases w.e.f. the date of their ad hoc appointment in the post of Asstt. Engineers.

(3.) Civil Rule No. 673 of 1994 has been filed by the Promotee Assistant Engineers Association (IFCD) Govt. of Manipur against the State of Manipur and other official respondents and also against the direct recruits who were appointed subsequent to the date of appointment of the members of the petitioners' association. The petitioners Assn. challenge the seniority list published by the Govt. vide notification No. 13/37/82-IFC(Pt) IFC dated 26th July, 1993 and prays for a direction for preparing a fresh seniority list in accordance with the Principles for determination of seniority in the service as adopted by the State Govt. The petitioners' Assn. also prays for a direction to quash the final seniority list dated 27th Oct. 1993 at Annexure-A/22 and A/22(a). It is contended by the petitioners' Assn. that its members consisting of 16 (sixteen) in number as specified in paragraph 1 of the writ petition were appointed by the Govt. on different dates in the post of S.O. Grade- I on the recommendation of the M.P.S.C. After serving certain periods, the members of the petitioners' Assn. were promoted on ad hoc basis in the post of A.E. on different dates commencing from 16.8.75 to 31.10.81. Among the members of the petitioners' Assn., there are Degree holder S.O. Grade- I as well as Diploma holder S.O. Grade-I. The ad hoc appointments of the promotee Asstt. Engineers were regularised by the Govt. in the post of Assistant Engineers from 28.3.87 on the recommendation of the DPC and with the approval of the MPSC. Since the Govt. did not regularise the services of the ad hoc A.Es. w.e.f. the date of their ad hoc appointment in the post of A.Es, numerous cases had been filed by the promotee ad hoc engineers in the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court claiming the regularisation of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment in the grade of A.Es. on ad hoc basis. The High Court in different cases passed orders for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc promotee A.Es. from the date of their initial appointment in the post of A.Es. The High Court, however, kept open the question of seniority of the promotee ad hoc A.Es. open and to be determined by the Govt. in accordance with the seniority rules and in absence of such rules as per decision of the Apex Court. After the various judgments passed by the High Court, the Govt. regularised the services of the ad hoc promotee A.Es. with effect from the date of their initial appointment in the post of A.Es. on ad hoc basis. The State Govt. in their counter affidavit had also affirmed the aforesaid position. It is, however, contended by the respondents State Govt. that having regard to the general principles for determination of seniority as adopted by the Govt. the seniority of the promotee ad hoc engineers and direct recruits were prepared and accordingly one seniority list was published in 1984. In the seniority list of 1984, the direct recruits were shown to be senior to the promotee A.Es. However, though the seniority list of 1984 was not strictly implemented at the time of filling up of 4(four) posts of Executive Engineers 20 (twenty) names from the aforesaid seniority list were forwarded by the department to the DPC. This was challenged by the promotee A.Es. in Civil Rule No. 660/ 92. From the copy of the judgment of C.R. No. 660/92 at Annexure-A/23, it. appears that the High Court did not interfere with the 20 names forwarded by the department to DPC for appointment four Executive Engineers; but the High Court observed that in the interest of the A.Es, both the direct recruits and promotees, the final seniority list should be prepared for filling up of future vacancies. The High Court, however, made it clear that any appointment/promotion made in the meantime shall be subject to the final seniority list. According to (he aforesaid direction of the High Court, the Govt. published a tentative seniority list inviting claims and objections from the persons concerned. After considering the claims and objections, the Govt. published the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers on 27.10.93.