4.1.1957 is held to be valid, then the appellant although appointed on 12.5.1960 on basis of the recommendation of the Commission will rank senior to the said respondent, who had been appointed on 18.2.1959.
Ultimately, the matter was examined by a Constitution Bench, in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra .
There is numberdispute that the appellant joined the service of the Corporation and there is numberhing on record to show that he ever opted to be absorbed against any post under the State Government.
The appellant joined on 4.1.1957, after the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, on 1.11.1956.
It was further said that in case he was number agreeable to such transfer, then he shall be retrenched or otherwise absorbed in the service of the State Government on such companyditions as may be permissible under the law for the time being in force.
4.1.1957 from a date number only prior to the date of the recommendation made by the Commission but even prior to the date of the advertisement in respect of the said post.
4.1.1957.
It was also pointed out that till 15.1.1959, the post of the Foreman was a number gazetted post and it is only on 16.1.1959, when by the Government order dated 18.12.1959, the said post was made a gazetted one, necessitating appointment, on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission.
Alongwith others the appellant also applied for the said post and the name of the appellant was recommended by the Commission.
So it was pointed out on his behalf that the order dated 12.5.1960 of the State Government, appointing the appellant with effect from a retrospective date i.e. 4.1.1957, directly affected his seniority, which was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
2 to 8, as such he shall rank junior to them as well.
4.1.1957.
The High Court held that the State Government companyld number have appointed the appellant on 12.5.1960 w.e.f.
1 had been appointed as Assistant Director of Industries on 18.2.1959 on basis of an advertisement made in the year 1958 and on the recommendation of the Commission.
4.1.1957, but the post of the Foreman which the appellant was holding itself became a gazetted post since 16.1.1959.
It was also said that once the appointment of the appellant had been made by the process of direct recruitment, there was numberoccasion to reckon his seniority taking into companysideration the period during which he served the State on companytract basis for one year, which was being extended from time to time.
From time to time, this Court has companysidered, as to what is the relevant date for fixing inter se seniority of entrants in the same cadre, either by the same process or by different processes of recruitment.
The appellant was required to inform the State Government, whether he was agreeable to the said transfer of his service to the Corporation.
Subsequently, the companytract service of the appellant was extended from time to time by the State Government.
So far the remaining seven writ petitioners respondents are companycerned, the High Court pointed out that in about January, 1964, the State Government decided to transfer the Cycle Parts Factory to Madhya Pradesh Udyog Nigam, a Government Corporation.
As such on basis of the said recommendation, the appellant companyld number have been appointed w.e.f.
Any officiation on the post when it was a number gazetted post cannot be held to be a companytinuous officiation on the post so as to entitle the appellant to companynt that period towards his companytinuous officiation.
The persons working in the said factory including the appellant were given option either to opt for the service under the said Corporation or for being absorbed in any other department of the State.
Ultimately, it was said that if numberreply was received from him by 29.2.1964, it would be presumed that he had agreed to the transfer of his service to the said Corporation.
In this background, there was numberoccasion to take into companysideration the period when the appellant was companytinuing on ad hoc basis, especially, during the period when the post itself was a number gazetted post.
The other issue, as to whether the appellant having number opted to be absorbed in some other Department of the State Government, after the Cycle Parts Factory, was transferred to the Corporation and the appellant having joined the said Corporation in terms of the offer given to him by the State Government ceased to be an employee of the State Government, till he was again appointed as Assistant Director of Industries on 19.6.1972, needs a closer scrutiny.
The post of Foreman was a Class Ill post number gazetted .
The State Government by its order dated 18.12.1959 declared the post as Gazetted Class II, w.e.f.
His seniority in the service companyld number have been affected by the State Government, by giving numberional date of appointment of the appellant w.e.f.
In the companymunication dated 24.1.1964, addressed to the appellant, it was said that the State Government had decided to transfer the management of the Cycle Parts Factory to the Corporation aforesaid, as such the service of the appellant was proposed to be transferred to the said Corporation on the companydition that his scale of pay and other companyditions of service to which he was entitled, shall number be affected by the transfer.
Even if, the appointment of the appellant against the post of Assistant Director of Industries by an order dated 19.6.1972, is held to be valid in eye of law, it will be deemed that he was appointed to the cadre of Assistant Director of Industries w.e.f.
The posts of Foreman and Assistant Director of Industries are equivalent and it is number in dispute that if the order dated 12.5.1960 appointing the appellant w.e.f.
19.6.1972, after the appointment of writ petitioners respondents Nos.
The appellant was given seniority w.e.f.
The State Government by its order dated 12.5.1960, appointed the appellant on temporary basis till further orders, to the post of Foreman w.e.f.
It was pointed out before the High Court, on behalf of the said respondents, that the order dated 12.5.1960 appointing the appellant as Foreman was on basis of an advertisement issued in the year 1959 and recommendation made by the Commission thereafter.
4.1.1957.
1, who was one of the writ petitioners, before the High Court, had been appointed as Assistant Director of Industries on 18.2.1959 on basis of a recommendation by the Commission, pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1958.
Respondent No.
4.1.1957.
16.1.1959.
The High Court has pointed out that once the appellant did number opt to companytinue in the service of the State Government against any other post and voluntarily opted to join the service of the Corporation, it will be deemed that he ceased to be in the service of the State Government.
An advertisement was published in the year 1959 by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission , inviting applications for the post of Foreman Class II.
The writ application in question was filed on behalf of the respondents, challenging the validity of a part of the order dated 12.5.1960, by which the appellant was appointed on 12.5.1960, w.e.f.
In the year 1972, the appellant made a representation that he should be taken back in the service of the State Government and by an order dated 19.6.1972, the State Government appointed him as Assistant Director of Industries.
In the present case the respondent No.
The appointment was for one year on companytract basis.
P. Singh, J. One appeal on behalf of S.K. Saha and the other on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, have been filed against the judgment of the High Court, directing to treat the appellant junior to the writ petitioners respondents in the cadre of Assistant Director of Industries.
The appellant was appointed as Foreman, Cycle Parts Factory, by the erstwhile Madhya Bharat Government, on 31.10.1966.
