Who had joined the service earlier, should be companyfirmed first according to the dates of joining the service as Assistant Engineers, after giving weightage, in preference to the respondents therein.
It is necessary to briefly numberice the facts of this writ petition and the principle enunciated by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court while disposing it, as also the decision of this companyrt on appeal reported as Jagmal Singh Yadav v. M. Ramaya A.I.R. 1977 C. 1474.
The case of the petitioners was that prior to their appointment as Assistant Engineers they were working as temporary section officers in C.P.W.D. in the subordinate engineering services, Class III Non gazetted and that they were appointed as Assistant Engineers in accordance with clause b of Rule 3 read with Part IV of 1954 Rules.
It is thus number necessary and we are number inclined to disturb the existing situation by setting aside or questioning the companyfirmation of these respondents who have been companyfirmed.
They submitted that they were entitled to be companyfirmed prior to or at any rate along with the said respondents.
In the companynter affidavit filed by one Shri Jagdish Prasad, Dy.
Fixation of quota was a matter still under companysideration of the Central Government but numberfinal decision was taken till the rendering of decision by the High Court.
1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition were the Union of India, U.P.S.C. and another official respondent.
Their grievance was that though respondents 4 to 99 were appointed subsequent to them, they have been companyfirmed in the category of Assistant Engineers leaving the writ petitioner unconfirmed.
238 of 1969.
Writ Petition No.238 of 1969 was filed by 12 Assistant Engineers who were appointed as Assistant Engineers on various dates between 18th October, 1958 and 8th January, 1963 to officiate temporarily until further orders.
The respondent Nos.
Respondents 4 to 51 were recruited directly under clause a of Rule 3 read with Part III i.e., by companypetitive examination held by U.P.S.C., while respondent 62 to 99 were recruited directly under clause b of Rule 3 read with Part IV i.e., in companysultation with the U.P.S.C. but otherwise than by holding companypetitive examination.
That there was numberfinal determination of quota as companytemplated by Rule 4 c between the four methods sources of recruitment specified in Rule 3.
That the petitioners in the said writ petition and other persons similarly situated like them.
