UPENDRA NARAIN MISHRA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the petitioners of this writ application, four in number, and respondents 6 to 19 is the usual dispute of their inter se seniority. Whereas the petitioners were directly recruited as temporary Assistant Engineers by notifications dated 9th Aug. and 12th Aug., 1966 (Annexures 2 series) in the Bihar State Electricity Board (to be referred to as'the Board') the respondents 6 to 18 were promoted as officiating Assistant Electrical Engineers on 10-4-1967 from the rank of Junior Engineers and respondent No. 19 from Engineer Assistant by notifications dated 10-4-67 and 20-6-67 respectively (vide Annexures 3 series).

(2.) In the years 1965 eighty nine vacancies in the rank of Assistant Electrical Engineer in the respondent Board were estimated for the year 1966. A panel of 142 suitable candidates was prepared and approved by the Board on 21-4-1966. This panel was valid for one year. These vacancies were to be filled up partly by direct recruitment and partly by promotion on the basis of 'Quota Rule', the quota being 30% for the Junior Engineers and 25% for Engineer Assistants. The petitioners were appointed under the above proposal on the basis of an advertisement issued by the Board followed by the recommendations of the Selection Committee after regular interview held on different dates. However, it appears from Annexure F to the show-cause of respondents 6 to 19 that the Board in its meeting dated 20-3-67 (vide Resolution No. 1419) decided to promote 16 Electrical Overseers to the rank of Assistant Electrical Engineers and in pursuance thereof respondents 6 to 18 were promoted vide notification dated 10-4-1967 just mentioned above. These respondents joined their new posts on different dates between 17-4-1967 to 9-8-1968, particulars whereof have been given by the petitioner in Annexure 7. From Annexure E it would also appear that the case for promotion of respondent No. 19 (Shri Chittarajan Prasad) was also recommended by virtue of the approval given on 7-3-1967.

(3.) From the facts stated above it is apparent that at the time when petitioners were appointed and had joined their posts, respondents 6 to 18 were working on the junior posts. The Board by office order dated 5-7-81 (Annexure 10 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners filed on 11-9-81), while fixing the inter se seniority of its officers placed on the petitioner junior to respondents 6 to 19 on the ground that where officers are recruited by promotion and by direct appointment " at the same time" the promoted officers take precedence over the officers directly recruited, treating the respondents, although they were appointed later on, as being appointees "in the same transaction". The petitioners have challenged this gradation list. They have also challenged the proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 16-5-81 when a panel for promotion to higher post, namely, Electrical Executive Engineer, from the rank of Assistant Electrical Engineer in the general cadre, was prepared. This panel of the Selection Committee is Annexure 1 to the writ application.