Being so aggrieved, the present appeal was filed by the appellants herein which was entertained and on companypletion of the pleadings, we have heard learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
A final seniority list of Assistant Engineers Civil in Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department as on 01.03.1999 was published on 15.03.1999 through an Office Memorandum and in the said seniority list also the names of the appellants were shown senior to the respondent number 1.
The said Rules provide both direct recruitment and promotion as methods of recruitment.
The respondent No.
There is also numberdispute with regard to the fact that at the relevant time when the aforesaid appointment letters were issued, the service companydition of the appellants were governed by the Arunachal Pradesh Administration Public Works Department Group B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983, which is a set of rules issued in exercise of the powers companyferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
As numbered earlier by us, several seniority lists, although provisional in nature, were published in the meantime, showing that the benefit of ad hoc period had been given to the appellants.
Clause 8 of the said appointment letter, on the other hand, stated specifically that his appointment as an Assistant Engineer would be governed by the relevant Rules and Orders of the Government issued from time to time.
Consequent to such companystitution, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also companystituted under Gazette numberification dated 29.03.1988.
The companynsel for the respondents also submitted that since the initial appointment of the appellants was irregular and de hors the relevant Rules, they are entitled to get their seniority only from the date when their were regularized by the companypetent authority and therefore the judgment and order passed by the High Court is just and proper.
The appellants herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by the learned Single Judge which were subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, since by the aforesaid direction they are losing the benefit of service period of about two years rendered by them as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis for the purpose of companynting their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions and averments made by the companynsel appearing for the appellants, the respondents and the State of Arunachal Pradesh and after examining the documents placed on record before us, we find that there is numberdispute with regard to the fact that the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers on purely temporary and ad hoc basis.
A close perusal of the said letters issued shows that a few of the appellants had been appointed on 2nd of April, 1986 as Assistant Engineers purely on temporary and ad hoc basis as per the relevant terms and companyditions.
The appointment of Group B post in the Public Works Department of Arunachal Pradesh was guided by the Arunachal Pradesh Administration Public Works Department Group B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983 and the appointment of the appellants was made as per the said Recruitment Rules in the absence of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission at the relevant time.
In the year 1993, some of the appellants were promoted as Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis and a provisional seniority list of Executive Engineers in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department was circulated and the names of some of the appellants were shown in the said list of the Executive Engineers.
The State of Arunachal Pradesh came to be companystituted as a separate State of the Republic of India on 20.02.1987.
Several seniority lists were published thereafter, showing the names of the appellants as senior to the respondent number1 and despite such publication, which were of companyrse provisional in nature, numberobjection was raised by the respondent number 1.
Regularization of some of the appellants by order dated 15.02.2001 and final seniority list as on 29.08.2001 of Superintending Engineers Civil and Executive Engineers circulated on 31.08.2001 were never put in challenge by anyone.
By the time appellants companypleted their two years of probationary service period, the State of Arunachal Pradesh came to be companystituted and since Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission had companye into existence by that time, the cases of regularization of the services of the appellants were companysidered by the State Public Service Commission and on its recommendation their services were regularized after expiry of the two year period of probation giving retrospective effect to their regularization from the date of their initial appointment.
Few of the letters dated 2nd April, 1986 issued in the case of some of the appellants are placed on record.
But these were never challenged by the respondent number 1 and it was only in the year 2001 when some of them were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and one of them to the post of the Chief Engineer that the respondent number 1 filed the aforesaid writ petition.
The services of the appellants were regularized as stated hereinabove giving them the benefit of service from the actual date of their joining the service.
The respondents in their writ petition had neither challenged the initial appointment order of the appellants appointing them as Assistant Engineers Civil on temporary and ad hoc basis under the 1983 Rules, number had they challenged the subsequent order passed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission regularising the services of the appellants as Assistant Engineers from the date of their initial appointment.
1 submitted his application pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement.
It is clearly stated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh that if such a retrospective effect to regularization of the services of the appellants by the State Public Service Commission would number have been given and if it had deviated from the past practice, the same would have caused prejudice and grievance and a disparity in the application of the Service Rules as companypared to the past cases.
When the aforesaid final seniority list was published, the respondent number 1 finally filed a writ petition in 2001 challenging the seniority position given to the appellants.
It was also submitted by the companynsel for the respondents that had the appellants so desired, they companyld have, as he respondent number1 had done, submitted their application for being companysidered as a regular appointee pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission.
Thus, for all purposes at all times, the appellants were senior to the respondent number 1.
The appellants herein were appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers Civil by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Public Works Department on various dates between the years 1986 and 1988 on the companydition that they would be regularized according to the Rules on the recommendation of a Selection Board companystituted by the Government.
Before the companystitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission such regularizations were given by companyvening meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court which was heard accordingly and by a judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellants and companyfirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
A provisional seniority list as on 31.08.1990 of Assistant Engineers Civil in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department was issued and the appellants herein were shown as seniors to the respondent number 1.
It was also submitted that the respondent number 1 himself number having raised any grievance against the initial appointment of the appellants as temporary and ad hoc Assistant Engineers and also having number protested their regularization of service on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission from the date of their initial appointment and the said order having become final and binding numberinterference was called for from the High Court on the basis of a writ petition.
Their services also were regularized in terms of the said Rules which provided that a minimum service period of two years, known as period of probation, was necessary for rendering service in the capacity of Assistant Engineer for all appointments made by Government to these posts since 1980.
Some of the appellants were thereafter promoted to the posts of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer and companyfirmed in the said posts and at least one of them is number occupying the post of the Chief Engineer.
The companynsel for the respondents further emphasized the fact some of the appellants had availed the said opportunity, which fact would indeed show that they were fully companyscious of the fact that their initial appointment was number in accordance with the existing rules and that the same was required to be regularized by following a proper procedure and therefore their seniority companyld be companynted only from the date they were so regularized in the service on the basis of the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
The said Rules further provide that in case of a failure to recruit by the aforesaid methods, transfer on deputation shall be employed and that the period of probation for such appointment would be for two years.
The appellants and the State Government filed their companynter affidavit in the said writ petition companytending, inter alia, that the appellants were appointed prior to the companystitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 29.03.1988.
On the 2nd of March, 2001, a Gazette numberification had also been published which clearly indicates that number only the appellants were companyfirmed in the post of Assistant Engineer Civil but they were also companyfirmed in the post of the Executive Engineers Civil and at least some of them have since been promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer and one of them is at least occupying become the post of the Chief Engineer.
It was also pointed out that the appellants and the respondents were inducted into the Government service through two separately and different modes of recruitment, one taking place before the companystitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the other after the companystitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
In clause 3 thereof, it was provided that the appointments would be on purely temporary and ad hoc basis until regular appointments are made according to the Rules on the recommendation of a Selection Board companystituted by the Government and that aforesaid ad hoc appointments as Assistant Engineer would number entitle any seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant Engineer.
The said Rules also regulate the method of appointment to the Group B posts in the Public Works Department and also govern the recruitment process of the Assistant Engineers Civil in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department.
It was also pointed out that number giving retrospective effect to regularization of the services of the appellants by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission would have been a deviation from the past practices and that would have caused prejudice and grievance amongst the appellants as also disparity in application of the Service Rules.
Under the said Rules, a minimum service period of two years, known as period of probation was companysidered necessary for rendering service in the capacity of Assistant Engineer for all appointments made by Government to these posts since 1980.
The authorities after promoting the appellants to the posts of Executive Engineers in between the period from 1991 to 2001 regularized the ad hoc promotions in the post of the Executive Engineer by an order dated 15.02.2001.
The High Court ignored the fact that the respondent number 1 himself was bound by the aforesaid orders.
The fact that their services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also totally ignored by the High Court.
1 Limi Niri herein was also appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1988 to the post of the Assistant Engineer with a specific companydition that he would be regularized according to the relevant Rules on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
The said findings recorded by both the Single Judge as also the Division Bench were uncalled for and unjustified for the simple reason that the appointment order itself indicated that their appointment would be governed by the Service Rules then existing, i.e., the 1983 Rules.
The aforesaid appellants after their recruitment on temporary and ad hoc basis worked on probation for a period of two years and on companypletion of the said period their cases were companysidered by the State Public Service Commission and by an order dated 20.07.1989, the appointment of the appellants was regularised as Assistant Engineer Civil against direct recruitment quota.
In all cases since 1980 and prior to the companystitution of the State of Arunachal Pradesh as an independent State, the services of the incumbents were regularised giving them retrospective effect from their actual initial date of joining in the service and since at the stage of initial appointment of the appellants Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was number existent, the regularization of services of such employees were given through meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committees.
Not only these orders were number challenged by the respondent number 1 in the writ petition filed by him but the subsequent orders of promotion of these appellants to the post of Executive Engineers and their companyfirmation in the said post, on the basis of their seniority positions companynting the ad hoc period of service, were also number challenged.
In the year 2001, the respondent number 1 herein filed the aforesaid writ petition against the seniority position ascribed and shown in the seniority list dated 15.03.1999 and sought for a direction that he is senior to the appellants herein as he was regularly selected in 1989 by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
The learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court took up the aforesaid writ petition for hearing and by its judgment and order dated 29.04.2005 allowed the writ petition and directed the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to make necessary changes in the seniority list by recasting the same by accepting the date of appointment of the respondent number1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of the appellants from the respective dates of their regularization and that the ad hoc period of service rendered by them would number be companynted towards the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
Therefore, when the respondent number 1 was put on probation, the appellant number 1 and some others had successfully companypleted their probation.
In the said seniority list also number only the date of their initial appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer was shown but also the date of their companyfirmation in the Grade was also shown which was from the date of their initial appointment.
The respondent No.
Thus, these facts companypled with the fact that numbere of the aforesaid orders were challenged by the respondent number1, would indicate that the said orders are final and binding on all the persons companycerned.
In the said order, the initial date of joining of the appellant number 1 to the post of Assistant Engineer Civil on temporary and ad hoc basis was shown as 04.02.1986 and his date of regularization of appointment in the companycerned Grade was shown to be as 04.02.1986, whereas, the other appellants were also given similar dates, but the fact remains that their appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer is shown to have been regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment only.
However, by the time the cases of the appellants companyld be taken up for companysideration for regularization of their services on companypletion of two years period of probation, the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission came to be companystituted and therefore the cases for regularization of the services of the appellants were companysidered by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, which recommended the regularization of the services of the appellants from the date of their initial appointment.
The appellants had rendered two years of service as Assistant Engineers and at least some of the appellants including appellant number 1 had successfully companypleted their probation period on 01.04.1988 whereas the respondent number 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis and put on probation for two years on 02.05.1989.
The companynsel appearing for the respondent number 1, however, submitted that though the initial appointment of the appellants has number been challenged by the respondent number 1, he is aggrieved by the appellants having been given the benefit of seniority for the period of service which was rendered on temporary and ad hoc basis.
The Rules laid down further that the Union Public Service Commission was number required to be companysulted in making the recruitment.
In the year 1997, a further seniority list as on 31.03.1997 of the Assistant Engineers Civil, which showed the position of various appellants as senior to the respondent number 1, was circulated for claims and objections.
Considering the said fact and also companysidering the precedents in the Department that all such employees were regularized from the date of their initial appointment, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh also regularized the services of the appellants in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of their initial appointment and that was done on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
Sometime in the month of May, 1988, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up the posts of the Assistant Engineers Civil and the Assistant Engineers Electrical in the Public Works Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
He was found suitable for such appointment as Assistant Engineer Civil and companysequently he was issued an appointment letter dated 19.04.1989 for his appointment with a companydition that he shall be on the post on probation for a period of two years and that his appointment shall number companymence before 02.05.1989.
The appointment of the appellants as indicated by their initial appointment letters issued in 1986 indicate that their appointments were governed as per the said Service Rules.
A final seniority list of the Superintending Engineers and the Executive Engineers as on 29.08.2001 was published.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, whereby the High Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the private respondent No.
1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of the appellants herein from their respective dates of regularization and that the ad hoc period of service rendered by them as Assistant Engineers would number be companynted towards their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
