SUSHIL KUMAR RANJAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the private respondents as well as by the State Government to challenge the judgment dated 23rd June 2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2325 of 2007, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the provisional gradation list dated 19th March 2007 and final gradation list dated 11th February 2009 of the Diploma Engineers in the Road Construction Department of the State Government, have been quashed and the respondent authorities were directed to prepare a fresh final seniority list of the Junior Engineers of the concerned Department by applying the procedure laid down in the Circular Dated 17th June 1975 issued by the Department.

(3.) IN pursuance of the communication dated 28th February 1979, 676 posts were advertised. However, against these posts, only 237 candidates got appointment. Appointment letters were issued on 09th December 1982 and along with the general order for appointment, a list of the employees who were selected for appointment, was annexed. In this list, column no. 2 has heading merit (Yogyata). In this list, writ petitioners' names were below the names of appellants non petitioners in the writ petition. As we have already noticed that this appointment was because of the reason that there was no appointment given for the past number of years and therefore, to meet the grievances of the Diploma / Degree holders, Engineers, this procedure was adopted for making ad -hoc appointment without getting recommendation from the State Public Service Commission. These appointments were only for six months. However, these appointments continued and ultimately on 29th October 1986, an Ordinance was issued for regularization of the services of the various Engineers including the selected 237 candidates. A consequential order was issued by the Government on December 1986 regularizing the services of all 237 employees from the date of their initial appointment. Along with this order of 8th December 1986, the list of employees was also enclosed. In this list of employees, writ petitioners were shown above the present appellants. This placement was not challenged by the appellants and thereafter, in the year 1993, 1996, 2001 and 2002 provisional gradation lists were published, but those gradation lists were not challenged. However, it is the case of the appellants that they submitted representation against this gradation list so as to get seniority above the writ petitioners and their those representations were rejected but admittedly said lists were never challenged in Court.