YOGENDRANATHVERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for quashing of the final gradation list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the department of Water Resources published on 9th July, 1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas his name appears at serial No. 261, it should have appeared between serial numbers 190 and 191. According to him the date which has been taken into account for reckoning seniority is 25-1-1973. According to him the relevant date which should have been taken into account is 24-5-1968. If 24-5-1968 is taken to be the relevant date for reckoning seniority he should have been at serial No. 191 in the impugned seniority list.

(2.) The facts of this case are not in dispute. According to the petitioner he was appointed a Mechanical Overseer in the Tubewell Circle of the Public Works Department which was a work-charged establishment. He was appointed on 24-5-1968. The letter of appointment, Annexure-1, shows that he was appointed for a period of six months only and that his appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without notice. According to the petitioner his services were extended from time to time. Ultimately by the order Annexure-2 dated 25-1-1973 the petitioner was appointed as a Mechanical Overseer, now known as Junior Engineer, in the regular service known as Bihar State Subordinate Engineering Service. He, therefore, contends that the entire period for which he had served under the work-charged establishment should be counted for recknoning his seniority in the cadre of the regular service to which he was appointed on 25-1-1973.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents and the State have strongly opposed the application contending that the past services rendered by the petitioner may be relevant for the purpose of giving him monetary benefits and such other benefits to which he may be entitled in law but that cannot give him a right to claim seniority over members of the regular service who were borne on the cadre of the service even from before the date on which the petitioner was appointed to the service as a direct recruit by absorption. Learned counsel for th State has further submitted by reference to annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the circular issued by the State Government makes it clear that wherever appointment is made to the regular service by absorption oi persons serving under work-charged establishment such appointment shall be considered to be a fresh appointment to the service. From this it follows that seniority will count from the date on which such person is appointed by absorption in the regular service. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that before the seniority list Annexure-7 was finalised, objection had been invited from the persons concerned including the petitioner, as would be evident from the order dated 18th July, 1988, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The petitioner did not raise any objection and, therefore, he cannot now be permitted to raise any objection.