TAFZIL AHMED Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two review petitions have been filed with the prayer that the judgment dated 25.5.2007 whereby seven identical matters were decided, in so far as it has allowed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 689/1996 Ramesh Chand Jain and Ors. v. Rajasthan Housing Board may be reviewed and recalled and the said appeal may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with the clarification that the petitioners having been substantively appointed as Project Engineer (Junior) on May 21, 1987 and regularly promoted through DPC on November 21, 1987 cannot be treated as junior to those who were subsequently appointed.

(2.) Factual matrix of case giving rise to these review petitions is that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc temporary basis as Project Engineer (Junior) with the condition that they shall be confirmed if their work is found satisfactory. On being adjudged suitable by the screening committed, they were made substantive in service by order of the Rajasthan Housing Board ('the Board', for short) on May 19, 1987. Within six months of their being made substantive, the petitioners and other similarly situated Project Engineers (Junior) who were in all eleven in number, were promoted to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) through DPC vide order dated November 21, 1987. Twenty five Project Engineers (Junior) were appointed by way of direct recruitment on May 24, 1987. The appeal in which the judgment is prayed to be reviewed was filed by five persons who were appointed as Project Engineer (Senior) by due process of selection as direct recruits vide order dated March 27, 1989 and having completed more than five years of experience on that post, they became eligible for promotion to the post of Resident Engineer. They in the year 1996 filed the subject writ petition with the prayer that the respondent-Board be directed to correctly determine seniority of the incumbents working in the feeder cadre of Project Engineer (Senior) as per regulation 11 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Conditions of Recruitment and Promotions) Regulations, 1976 ('the Regulations of 1976', for short) read with the provisions contained in Schedule Technical appended thereto, especially its Clause (3)(d). The review petitioners according to them were appointed by backdoor entry and were then regularized in service on May 19, 1987. They thus became members of service thereafter and therefore, would be entitled to promotion upon completion of requisite period of experience of service of three years from that date for promotion to the post of Resident Engineer. It is evident from order of the learned Single Judge that the said writ petition was filed on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No. 7477/1992 on July 7, 1993. The writ petition No. 7477/1992 was filed by K.K. Dixit and Ors. who were Project Engineers (Junior) degree-holders challenging action of the respondent-Board. As per the relevant rules, degree-holder Project Engineers (Junior) were required to possess only three years' of experience in service to be eligible for promotion while diploma holders needed to possess seven years' total experience of service for the purpose. K.K. Dixit ans Ors. questioned the action of the respondent-Board in seeking to count such experience of the diploma-holders who subsequently acquired degree even for period anterior to their acquiring such degree and contended that such Project Engineer (Junior) diploma-holders who were initially appointed on ad hoc temporary basis merely on the basis of stray application without advertising vacancies, inviting applications and giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to compete therefore and were subsequently regularized in service by way of screening, should not be allowed the benefit of seniority for the period they were serving merely on ad hoc basis and such period should also be not counted for the purpose of experience because they had by then not become member of service.

(3.) The learned Single Judge while accepting the aforesaid contention allowed the writ petition and held that the period of service rendered by such employee on ad hoc basis cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of experience of eligibility for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) and that only the period of service rendered by them after being screened and regularized shall be countable for the purpose. Subsequently, a review petition was filed by the original-petitioners for direction to prepare separate seniority list for degree-holders and diploma holders. The learned Single Judge allowed the review petition with the direction that separate seniority list shall be prepared and such of the Project Engineers (Junior) who acquired the qualification of AMIE shall be placed lowest in that year in the the seniority list of Project Engineer (Junior) degree holders.