HABUNG AMPI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Laji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Wangmo, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. M. Boje, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6. However, none appears for the respondent Nos. 5 & 7.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.01.2016, issued by the Chief Engineer, PHE & WS Department, vide No. PHED-I/25/96(Vol-I)/I, whereby the respondent No. 5/Smt. Pakyum Yaluk, Contingent Peon under PHE Department, has been appointed in the post of peon, on the recommendation of Departmental Promotional Committee (in short DPC), and order dated 03.08.2016, issued by the Superintending Engineer, PHE & WS Department, vide No. PHED/II/SE/Coord/156/2016/D/819-23, whereby Smt. Rikpe Lombi/ respondent No. 6, who was working as a casual typist, has been appointed as peon, on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 15.09.2016, issued by the Superintending Engineer, PHE & WS Department, vide No. PHED/II/SE/Coord/156/2016/(A)/2078-83, whereby Ms. Marjum Bagra, a casual typist under the PHE & WS Department, has been appointed as peon, on ad-hoc basis.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as casual peon by an order dated 01.11.1993, in the Department of PHE & WS, whereas the respondent No. 5 was appointed as casual peon on 12.12.2000 and respondent Nos. 6 & 7 were appointed as LDC (contingency), sometime in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, there is a seniority list of the casual worker under PHE Division, Itanagar, published and maintained as on December 2009, wherein the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 96 and that of the respondent No. 5 appears at serial No. 104. The respondent No. 6 & 7 not being working under the Itanagar Division, their name do not find place in the seniority list maintained by the PHE Division, Itanagar. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 5 and respondent Nos. 6 & 7 having been appointed in the year 2000 and 2006 respectively, are much junior to the writ petitioner and despite that the respondent authorities vide impugned orders mentioned above have given them promotions and appointed as peon on regular and on ad-hoc basis, by excluding the writ petitioner who is much senior to the respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7, having working in the department for more than 23 (twenty three) years.