SANJEEV KAUL Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original application has been filed by two applicants who after passing the Bachelor of Engineering Degree had joined the service of the respondent State as direct recruits on August 11, 1988 as Assistant Engineers. Their names appeared in the final seniority list circulated on November 30, 1995 showing the position as on March 16, 1995 at Serial Nos. 9 and 70 respectively as per Annexure -A/1. Subsequently respondent No.1 circulated on December 9, 1997 a provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers as on October 31, 1997. In the said provisional seniority list the names of the applicants were shown at Serial Nos. 131 and 132. Earlier in the seniority list Annexure -A/1 the Diploma Holder Engineers who were placed en block below such to direct recruits who were appointed prior to the date of regularisation of Diploma Holders. However, in the provisional seniority list (Annexure -A/7), some of these diploma holders have allegedly been placed senior to the applicants, though the services of those diploma holders had been regularised only in 1995 or thereafter. The grievance of the applicants is that the provisional seniority list if finalised would adversely affect their chances of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

(2.) Another grievance of the applicants is that this Tribunal in OA -174/96 had directed for holding of a review Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for consideration of all eligible officers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on year wise basis vis -a -vis vacancies in each particular year during the period commencing from 1985 to 1993, separately, in accordance with the instructions/rules pertaining to rota and quota basis of each category within a period of three months from the date of that order, Further it was also ordered that while holding the meeting of the review Departmental Promotion Committee, persons who have retired or had died during the period in question, would also be considered. It has been contended that both these directions have not been complied with by the respondents.

(3.) It has also been stated that final seniority list contained in Annexure -A/1 had become final and there was no reason to issue fresh provisional seniority list as Annexure -A/7 in which the Diploma Holders have been given seniority above the applicants, Further grievance of the applicants is that the proposed seniority list contained in Annexure -A/7 is not in accordance with the instructions issued by the respondent State on October 7, 1986 as per Annexure -A/8. Vide instructions contained in Annexure -A/8, the Government of Himachal Pradesh had stated that the revised instructions issued by Government of India on October 7, 1986 (Annexure -A/9) regarding the general principle for determining seniority of various categories of persons had been adopted by the State Government and these instructions would be applicable to the employees of the State with effect from the date of issue of Annexure -A/8. In the instructions issued by Government of India on February 7, 1986 (Annexure -A/6), the general principle for determining seniority between direct recruits and promotee officers have been spelled out. In brief, these instructions cover situations were the roster point fixed for direct recruits and promotee officers are not filled for a considerable period on account of non availability of officers of a particular category. Before issue of instructions in Annexure -A/9, the slots meant for direct recruits or promotees, which could not be filled up, were left vacant, and when direct recruits or promotees became available, such persons occupied these vacant slots. Thus such subsequently appointed persons became senior to persons who were already working in the grade on regular basis. This position was not approved by the courts and the fresh instructions (Annexure -A/9) were issued to give fair position to the direct and promotee officers according to their appointments. According to new instructions to the extent direct recruits (or promotees as the case may be) are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits quota vacancies (or promotees vacancies as the case may be) who were available. The unfilled direct quota vacancies (or promotee quota vacancies as the case may be) would be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies (or promotee vacancies as the case may be) of the next year (and to the subsequent years if necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment (promotion, as may be necessary) for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter, in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of number of vacancies for the two categories, as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional direct recruits (or promotees) against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit, as the case may be) in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year.