SANJAY SINGH NEHRA Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner praying for a direction to respondents to treat him having been appointed as departmental candidate against their quota, with effect from 22.07.1994 and assign him seniority treating him as departmental candidate and place at serial No. 148 in the seniority list dated 09.08.2001. Shri Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion, and Seniority, etc.) Regulations, 1969, the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent Corporation is filled in by two channels, one is by way of direct recruitment and another is by way of promotion. In direct recruitment, 2/3rd posts are to be filled in from open market candidates and 1/3rd are to be filled in from in -service Junior Engineers having two years experience (degree holder) and seven years experience (diploma holders), respectively.

(2.) PETITIONER possesses Degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical), which he obtained in the year 1989 from the then Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur, and on the basis of said qualification, initially he got appointment in erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board') on the post of Junior Engineer -I (Mechanical) on the basis of recommendation of selection committee vide order dated 24.03.1990 and joined on 31.03.1990. The respondent Board, thereafter, issued an advertisement dated 26.01.1993 for filing up 41 posts of Assistant Engineer from 2/3rd quota of open market candidates. Minimum educational qualification for that post was B.E. (Electrical) or Diploma in Electrical Engineering with 7 years experience as Junior Engineer. The respondent Board issued a Circular dated 30.03.1993 providing that Junior Engineers with B.E. in Mechanical, could also apply in the examination.

(3.) PETITIONER appeared in the written examination on admission card with roll No. 1945. He was declared successful. He was interviewed on 15.06.1994. Vide order dated 22.07.1994 petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of recommendations of the selection committee. He was shown to have been appointed on probation for two years against 2/3rd quota of open market candidates. Petitioner submitted a representation on 18.10.1994 for treating him to have been appointed against 1/3rd quota of in -service candidates, pointing out that though he was issued two admission cards but none of the admission cards indicated his category. He made such request so that he may not be deprived of his past service in the Board. The petitioner was not conveyed any decision on his representation, but he was hopeful that whenever seniority list would be published, his representation would be taken care of and he would be treated as in -service candidate and not as open market candidate. The petitioner remained under the impression that erstwhile Board would consider his request as the petitioner secured second position in written examination and he was shown just below one candidate, namely, Shri Surendra Vashistha, who was taken as in -service candidate by issuing separate office order.