MANOJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court: Heard counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is that their seniority has wrongly been determined by corrigendum dated 23rd of June 2001 (Annexure-13) contained in Memo No. 1383 by which, they have been placed at serial no. 108 (Ka) and 108 (Kha) respectively. The original seniority list is annexed as annexure-8/1 dated 8th of January 2001, wherein according to the petitioners, persons starting from serial no. 36 onwards have been placed senior to these petitioners and their names have lately been included by correction carried out through the corrigendum dated 23rd of June 2001.

(2.) However, the petitioners claim to be accorded seniority ahead of these persons rests on the grounds that at the time of entry in service on 7th of May 1993, petitioner no. 1 himself had acquired the AMIE qualification on 05th of April 1993 and the petitioner no. 2 had acquired it on 04th of October 1989 itself. Reliance of the petitioners is upon the circular contained at annexure-7 dated 22nd July 1998 whereunder, the Government of Bihar, Department of Road Construction had resolved to increase the quota of promotional avenues of the incumbents in the cadre of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. By the said resolution, 62% of the posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineers were to be filled up by direct recruitment, 10% from the quota of AMIE and 28% from promotion from diploma holders Junior Engineers. Earlier, the quota for promotion from those holding AMIE Degree was 3%.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon clause-(Ga) and (Gha) read together of the said resolution to submit that those persons who had obtained the qualification of AMIE during their service career, should not have been placed senior to the petitioners who already had the said qualification prior to entry in service. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment contained at annexure-4 passed in CWJC No. 8744/1992 and analogous cases dated 19th of May 1994 and submits that such persons should not have been discriminated against those who acquired the higher qualification during their service period, as there is no apparent rational or justification for the same. According to the petitioners, under the resolution of 1998, when the respondents had themselves acted for issuing the corrigendum contained at annexure-13, they ought to have reckoned the seniority of these petitioners on the basis of acquisition of their qualification even at the time of entry in service and not distinguishing them from those who had acquired such qualification after entry in service.