The appellant therein placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in P.O.Aggarwal Versus State of U.P. and Others 1987 3 SCC 622.
In the interview held in the year 1984, the appellants were also called and they were duly approved and selected by the Commission.
III Whether the High Court was right in reopening the issues which have been decided in favour of the promotees by three different Division Benches of the same Court without retiring the matter to a larger Bench?
8966 of 1989 which was decided on 17.1.1990.
The State Govt.
The said promotions were made within the quota of posts reserved for the promotees according to the relevant Service Rules by the Departmental Promotion Committee companysisting of Secretary, W.D., Chief Engineer, P.W.D. and Chief Engineer Irrigation Department.
Respondents 3 4 were selected through the Commission and appointed directly as Assistant Engineers in the P.W.D. by order dated 9.8.1979.
The appellants have a grievance that though their juniors were called for interview, they were number companysidered without any reason therefor.
On the representation of the promotees, an order was passed by the Govt.
Those orders were challenged by respondents 1 to 5 who were direct recruits and the orders were quashed.
The second appellant was directly appointed as overseer substantively in the said department through the Commission on the same day.
9343 of 1990, C.P.Sharma Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
Subsequently other orders were passed pushing back the dates of promotion still further to December 1958 for respondents 6 7 and February 1961 for respondents 14 to 23.
That Writ Petition was treated to be one in representative capacity and numberice was given to all companycerned through the newspapers.
A seniority list was published, vide letter dated 3.12.1984 issued by the Secretary.
By judgment dated 1.2.1991, the L.P. was dismissed by this Court.
In the meanwhile, one D.N. Saksena, who was an adhoc promotee as Assistant Engineer in the year 1970 just like the appellants and approved by the companymission in the year 1980, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court namely W.P. No.
The application filed by the appellants for impleading them as parties was also dismissed by the High Court.
However, the appellants were permitted to advance arguments through their companynsel at the time of hearing.
566 and second appellant at Serial No.
The S.L.P. was dismissed on 19.11.1990.
on 21.7.75 changing the date of promotion of the promotees to a prior date in 1961.
The main ground of attack was that the companynting of the period of companytinuous officiation of the promotees from the date of adhoc appointment was against the decision of this Court in P.D. Aggarwal Versus State of U.P. 1987 3 SCC 622.
On 31.5.1979 the appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on adhoc basis.
The judgment in the case of Saksena referred to earlier was assailed in this Court in S.L.P. C No.
Aggrieved by the said list, respondents 3 filed Writ Petition No.
Since then, the appellants have been working uninterruptedly on the post of Assistant Engineers.
respondents 3 4 were placed at Serial Nos.
1536 of 1981.
A Division Bench of the High Court upheld on 4.7.1989 the claim made by the petitioner in the said writ petition and held that the promotees would be assigned seniority from the date of companytinuous affliction and number from the date of approval by the Commission.
In May, 1978 they passed an examination known as Associate Member of Institution of Engineer India , Section A and B, equivalent to B.E. Degree.
However that grievance is outside the scope of the present companytroversy.
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgments the State Government gave benefit of seniority to the promotees.
Srinivasan.
Respondents 6 to 13 were promoted to the post in 1964 and the appellants were promoted in 1969.
of U.P. inviting objections filed by the direct recruits, a final seniority list was prepared and published, vide numberification dated 11.7.1995.
No promotee was impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition.
684 SB of 1995 in the High Court.
712 and 722 respectively.
The promotees were shown as juniors to the direct recruits in the seniority list.
Consequently, they were companyfirmed as Assistant Engineers.
The companymission held in the year 1980, an interview of some of the promotes to be companysidered for the post of Assistant Engineers.
A similar companytroversy inter se the promotees and direct recruits arose in another writ Petition No.
claiming seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of initial appointment and officiation on the said post.
The appointment orders stated that the promotion was being made to companye up with the work load in the Department since Assistant Engineers approved by the Commission were number available and that the promotions were only for a period of one year.
J. The first appellant was appointed as an Overseer re designated as Junior Engineer on adhoc basis in Public Works Department for short P.W.D , State of U.P. on 17.7.1973.
The first appellant was placed at Serial No.
There also the same view was taken by another Division Bench which was challenged in S.L.P. c No.
Both the appellants were holders of Diploma in Civil Engineering.
Whether the appellants can be deprived of the benefits of their officiating service prior to the approval of the Commission for the purpose of seniority in view of the fact that the delay in granting approval for making them regular on the post of Assistant Engineer was attributable to the State Government and the Commission, as the appellants were fully qualified to be appointed and approved as Assistant Engineers even on the date, they were appointed to officiate as such?
