PRATAP SINGH Vs. THE RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is at present working as Assistant Engineer in the Rajasthan Sate Electricity Board respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged the seniority of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 issued by the respondent No. 1 by its order dated September 1, 1970 which shows the final Seniority of Assistant Engineers as on 31 -12 -1967.

(2.) Sec. 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 empowers the State Government to constitute a State Electricity Board. By virtue of that power the State Government issued a notification dated 1 -4 -57 constituting the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The Board by its resolution No. 40 resolved that the Rajasthan State Service Rules as in force at the time of the formation of the Board namely the first July, 1957 and any amendments there to from time to time, be adopted by the Board and be deemed to have been adopted by the Board with effect from the 1st July 1957 except in so far as any such Rules or Regulation are or were altered or amended by the Board in which case the Rules as amended or modified by the Board would apply. By a subsequent resolution No. 41 passed on 26 -12 -1959 it was resolved that the resolution No. 40 would be subject to the modification that the words reference to the Government or the Public Service Commission; in such rules would mean the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. It was also resolved there in that these Rules, Regulations & delegation will be subject to modification in so far as any Rules. Regulation or delegations are modified by the Board in which case the Rules, Regulations or Delegation so amended or modified by the Board would apply and would be deemed to have applied with effect from the date of such amendment or modification.

(3.) By virtue of decision of the Board the Rajasthan Services of Engineers (Electrical and Mechanical Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1954') govern the conditions of services of the petitioner and the respondents No. 2 to 7. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer by an order dated 8 -7 -61 and pined the same on 17 -7 -61. The next promotion from the post of Junior Engineer is to that of Assistant Engineer Such posts are to be filled partly by promotion and partly by direct recruitment. The procedure provides for a list to be prepared by the Chief Engineer and the same to be considered by the Committee consisting of various officers who shall consider the list and after arranging the list in the order of seniority seed the same to the Board. Rule 24(6) of the 1954 Rules provides that the final selection shall be made by the Board and a list of candidates considered suitable for promotion shall be arranged in order of their seniority as Engineering Subordinates. I may make it clear that Engineering Subordinates include a Junior Engineer. Rule 28 of the aforesaid Rules provides for seniority and says that seniority shall be determined by the date of the order of appointment to the grade concerned The petitioner was in due course promoted as an Assistant Engineer under Rule 24 and his date of appointment is 21 -9 -62 as mentioned in the impugned seniority list The respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were appointed as Junior Engineer on 21.8.1957. In due course the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 have also been appointed by promotion as Assistant Engineers. The date of their appointment as Assistant Engineers given in the impugned seniority list for respondents 3 to 6 is 22.9.62 while the date of the respondent No. 6 is 21.9.62. The petitioners first grievance is that under Rule 28(i) the seniority is to be determined by the date of the order of appointment, the petitioner, whose date of appointment is 21 -9 -61 is center to the respondent No. 3 to 5. It is not clear how the date of the respondent 3 to 5 is mentioned as 22.9.62 while that of the petitioner and respondents be is mentioned as 21.9.62 when all of them including respondent no 6 were selected in pursuance of the decision of the Board at its 64th meeting held on 20th January 1965 So if on the basis that as the petitioner and respondent no. 3 to 6 must be declared to have been appointed by the same order, their seniority will be determined by Rule 28 (4) of the rules which provides that the seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion to a particular class of posts of the same date shall be the same as in the next below grade except in case of continued officiation on higher posts when it shall be in accordance with the length of such continued officiation provided that such officiation was not ad hoc or fortuitous. It Rule 28(4) is applicable it is not disputed that the petitioner is junior in next below grade of Junior Engineer to the respondent no. 3 to 6 as he was appointed as Junior Engineer no 8 -7 -61 while the respondents 3 to 6 were appointed as Junior Engineers on 21 -8 -57. It may be noted that the date of appointment mentioned in the seniority list of petitioner and respondent no. 6 is same i.e. 21 -9 -62 and in terms of this rule the petitioner must rank Junior to respondent no. 6.