R K KAPOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in both the appeals is whether a person appointed afresh by the Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board) can claim the benefits of services rendered by him prior to his fresh appointment.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that vide Advertisement Notice issued by the official respondents and consequent recommendations made by the Board on the basis of interview, the appointments came to be made for the post of Junior Engineers. The date of appointment of appellants and private respondents is also not in dispute. What is important is that all the appellants and private respondents came to be appointed as Junior Engineers on the basis of direct recruitment quota posts. In pursuance to their appointment as Junior Engineers, seniority list came to be issued by the respondents on 14th Sep. 1981. The appellants in the said seniority list were shown senior to the private respondents. After reorganization of the department, the appellants/private respondents came to be appointed as Assistant Engineers on 18.11.1987. The dispute arose when the respondent -State vide its Govt. order No.2 -PDD of 1989 dated 05.01.1989 re -designated respondents as Junior Engineers from the date they initially joined the service. It is important to mention that the respondents, who were initially appointed as Junior Engineers, were working in the lower grade than the one which was provided to the Junior Engineers who were appointed vide advertisement notice issued by the selection board. It is under these circumstances, the respondents sought their appointment as direct recruits in pursuance of the advertisement notice. It is this act of the State which is subject matter of controversy in the present case.

(3.) THE appellants called in question the aforesaid order before the writ court. The learned single judge vide judgment dated 17.10. 2001 dismissed the writ petition by holding that the respondents were given retrospective benefits by placing reliance on Govt. Order dated 05.09.1967. The learned Single Judge also held that the writ petition suffers by delay and laches. It is under these circumstances the present appeal has been preferred.