B.S. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four writ petitions are directed against the final seniority list dated 16/9/1994 issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short, the "Board") whereby respondents No.3 and 4, Shri V.P. Poddar and Shri V.K. Singhal were assigned seniority on the post of Assistant Environment Engineer which post was formerly known as "Assistant Engineer" over and above petitioners herein. Petitioners have a common grievance against the above referred to Shri V.P. Poddar and Shri V.K. Singhal and are staking their claim on the strength of the order issued by the respondent-Board on 8/11/1993 whereby they were all made members of service by way of screening under the provision of second proviso of Rule 6(1) of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations 1993 (for short, "Rules of 1993") in which, respondent-Board placed all of them above Shri V.P. Poddar and Shri V.K. Singhal clearly stating therein that their placement in that order was being made in order of seniority.

(2.) Shri B.S. Sharma-petitioner in SBCWP No.803/1996, was appointed as Junior Engineer with the respondents on 6/6/1978, Shri Rajeev Pareek -petitioner in SBCWP No.5726/1994 was appointed as Junior Engineer with the respondent Board on 24/11/1984, Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta-petitioner in SBCWP No.152/1995 was likewise appointed as Junior Engineer on 1/3/1979. Similarly Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma-petitioner in SBCWP No.4777/1995 was likewise appointed as Junior Engineer on 24/11/1984. Prior to their appointment as Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment, Shri V.P. Poddar was also appointed as Junior Engineer with the respondent-Board on 22/8/1985 and Shri V.K. Singhal was appointed as Junior Engineer on 24/11/1984. It so happened that respondent-Board in the meantime advertised certain posts of Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment and Shri V.P. Poddar was appointed on 15/4/1989 and Shri V.K. Singhal was appointed on 9/6/1989 on the post of Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment on ad hoc temporary basis. However, prior to their appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment, petitioner-B.S. Sharma had already been promoted on the same post on ad hoc basis vide order dated 2/1/1988, Rajeev Pareek on 27/5/1988, Ashok Kumar Gupta on 2/1/1988 and Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 2/1/1988.

(3.) Respondent-Board did not have its own rules prior to promulgation of the Rules of 1993 and in that situation, it had adopted Rajasthan Service of Engineer and Allied Posts (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1968 (for short, "Rules of 1968"). After appointment of Shri V.P. Poddar and Shri V.K. Singhal, respondent-Board by different orders extended their services on ad hoc basis upto Dec., 1991. Respondent-Board vide order dated 22/10/1988 extended services of Shri V.P. Poddar and Shri V.K. Singhal and nine others. Subsequently vide order dated 11/5/1992, their ad hoc services were extended upto 31/3/1993. In the meantime, when the Rules of 1993 were promulgated vide notification dated 1/3/1993, petitioners as well as private respondents were screened and were made members of the service by recourse to second proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1993. In the order passed on 8/11/1993, all of them were shown to have been working on ad hoc basis and were adjudged suitable for permanent appointment w.e.f. 30/3/1993 and therefore they were confirmed in such appointment with a clear stipulation that their names were mentioned in the said order in the order of seniority. Names of Bhagwan Swaroop Sharma, Ramesh Chandra Tomar, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Rajeev Pareek were respectively shown at Sr.No.1 to 5 in that order whereas names of Shri Vishnu Prakash Poddar and Shri Vijay Kumar Singhal were shown at Sr.No.6 and 7. A tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers was published on 20/7/1993 in conformity with that order in which names of Shri V.P. Poddar and Shri V.K. Singhal were placed below the petitioners. Objections were invited from the affected persons. It appears that their representations made in that behalf were accepted. This is how they were shown in the impugned seniority list senior to the petitioners, having been placed at Sr.Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Hence, all these writ petitions.