It appeals that Respondents 6 to 11 had applied and vide letter dated 27 2 1980 Respondent 6 was appointed as a Junior Progress Officer purely on ad hoc basis.
The other respondents who had number taken the examination, however, companytinued on ad hoc basis.
On 22 1 1980, a circular was issued inviting applications for preparation of panel of candidates for appointment as Junior Progress Officers on ad hoc basis.
The appellants and the said respondents were working as UDC Stenographers with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi.
These Rules were amended on 14 7 1976 and as a result thereof the post of Junior Progress Officer was shown to be a selection post which was to be filled after a written companypetitive examination.
During the pendency of these proceedings Respondent 10 has unfortunately expired.
Only Respondent 8, A.B. Ghosh and Respondent 11, A.K. Das companytinue to remain in service.
For recruitment to the said post statutory rules under proviso to Article 309 had been formulated in the year 1963.
As far as Respondent 6, S.K. Roy, Respondent 7, S. Srinivasa Rao and Respondent 9, A. Sunderachari are companycerned they have superannuated.
Kirpal, J. The only question involved in the companynected appeals relates to the seniority of the appellants, vis a vis, Respondents 6 to 11.
