They sought the quashing of existing seniority lists and they asked for issuing fresh seniority lists.
The seniority list dated 28.4.94 in the Mechanical Wing which was sought to be quashed in SWP 705/94 by the promotees showed that the quota rule had number broken down.
The Assistant Engineer was to work as a Technical officer to the Assistant Executive Engineer in the sub division and also to the Executive Engineer in each division.
Thereafter, Government issued a large number of orders and officers at various levels were promoted to the next higher post on an ad hoc basis for six months.
On the third point, the High Court held that seniority under Rule 11 of the 1978 Rules was to be determined in accordance with Rule 24 of the 1956 Rules on the basis of date of first appointment i.e. date of substantive appointment or date of permanent appointment or date of first appointment on probation against a clear vacancy.
Direct recruitment was indefinitely delayed to benefit promotee officers and even when it was initiated, it was restricted to 10.
The written submissions by both parties companyered as many as sixty rulings of this Court.
But the promotees companytended that there was numberrota, that the quota rule had broken down and the entire ad hoc service as Assistant Engineers companyld be companynted or regularised by the Government.
It was case of the direct recruits, that these ad hoc promotions were made number only against the 80 60 plus 20 quota of the promotees but also in respect of 10 out of the 20 quota of direct recruits, in total breach of the quota rule.
with 10 years service.
CWP 1869/97 and 824 B/94 were filed by the direct recruits Civil Engineers Hydraulic for fixing seniority as per the recommendations of the Committee companystituted by the Government by its order dated 31.2.1997 and for a direction number to promote promotee Assistant Engineers as Assistant Executive Engineers till a final seniority list was prepared.
The order dated 2.1.98 companyld number have the effect of regularising the entire ad hoc service.
But, for a period of 4 years, the companymission did number take any steps to make recommendations.
Later Government issued orders companytinuing these ad hoc stop gap appointments till regularisation.
3 4 in SLPs 5329 5330/99 that the stay order dated 7.4.99 did number imply any right to effect promotion during the pendency of the SLPs.
The findings of the High Court The High Court framed three points for companysideration.
The excess promotees had to be pushed down and had to be fitted in subsequent vacancies in their quota in later years.
The posts were advertised in 1987, but it was only in 1993, 1994 and in 1998 that the direct recruits were appointed in the three wings, and that in the Civil Mechanical and Electrical Wings 7, 16 and 20 posts were under excess occupation by the promotees and these posts were number filled by direct recruitment because the Government directed advertise ment of only 10 and number 20 for direct recruits.
Some direct recruits were appointed much later.
The High Level Committee Government appointed a High Level Committee on 21.5.97 to go into the various issues arising between the direct recruits and promotees.
It held that the quota rule and number broken down.
The judgment of the High Court deals with power of Government to appoint officers on promotion temporarily for periods of more than six month without companysulting the Public Service Commission, grant of seniority to such promotees in respect of service within their quota and also outside quota.
the date of their appointment as Assistant Engineers and to treat direct recruits as senior to respondents 3 to 121 therein promotees and to quash the promotion of respondents 3 to 32 therein as Assistant Executive Engineers Mechanical .
Validity of the order passed by the State Government on 2.1.
It was directed that status quo be maintained.
Thereafter, it opined as follows 1 as and when the direct recruitment was made, the direct recruits would be entitled to placement of their seniority to the vacancies reserved for them as per the ratio.
It was only after the High Court gave directions on 22.2.94 in certain writ petitions and on other dates in other petitions, that the direct recruits were appointed on various dates in 1994 as Assistant Engineers.
The advertisement was issued by the Commission on 3.12.87.
Similarly SWP.
It appears that the last direct recruitment in these wings was way back in 1984.
It was companytended for the direct recruits before the High Court that there was quota and rota, that the entire ad hoc service was to be treated as number est, whether it was rendered within the promotion quota or outside the said quotas and stop gap ad hoc service of promotees companyld number be regularised at all.
But then a further order was passed on 12.5.99 in IAs.
All the Diploma holders Section Officers were to be re designated as Junior Engineers.
The respondents before us who were direct recruit writ petition ers in the writ petitions before the High Court applied for direct recruitment.
The ratio was 20 by direct recruitment, 60 by promotion by graduate Junior Engineers with 3 years service and 20 by Diploma holder Junior Engineers with 10 years service etc.
On the three issues, referred, the Committee gave a Report soon thereafter in 1997.
Such orders passed under executive powers were outside the Rules and were invalid.
The above order dated 2.1.98 was questioned by direct recruits in the High Court along with other seniority lists.
On the other hand, the promotee officers filed SWP 98/93, 705/94 and 777/94 and in the two latter petitions, the seniority list dated 28.4.94 was questioned to the extent it was favourable to the direct recruits.
In as much as regulari sation of ad hoc promotions by the Government on 2.1.98 was illegal, the promotees were number members of the service.
2000 3 SCR 807 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
The State had number placed before the Court any material to show why it companyld number make direct recruitment.
It was held that in SWP 824 B/94 filed by direct recruits, Government filed a reply stating that there was quota rota rule and therefore the said Rule applied.
Ad hoc service beyond 6 months companyld number have been companytinued.
But instead of referring the matter of filing up the quota upto 20, the reference was companyfined only for 10.
All the appeals before us have been filed by the promoted Assistant Engineers.
The order of blanket regularisation of the promoted Assistant Engineers dated 2.1.98 for the Electrical Wing passed by the Government was in violation of Regulation 4 d ii was bad.
The period of officiation companyld number be taken into account for seniority.
It was only on 23.11.87 that the State Government referred to the State Public Service Commission the matter relating to direct recruitment.
During the companyrse of hearing of the case, at one stage companynsel made some efforts to narrow done the disputes between the two groups by discussion but ultimately all the points arising between the parties were argued elaborately and thoroughly.
It held on the first point that promotion to the post in the Gazetted cadre required companysul tation with the Commission on the question of promotion transfer from one service to another and also on the suitability of the candidates for appoint ment, promotion and transfer that under the J.K. Service Commission, Regulation 4 d ii , officiating promotion or transfer to any service or post, should number be for more than six months, unless the Commission was companysulted and that the orders for such ad hoc companytinuance beyond six months and till regularisation, without companysultation, were ineffective.
It said that merely because the State Government companyld number make direct recruitment due to inaction, the quota rule companyld number be said to have broken down.
The Continuous length of ad hoc service companyld number be so companynted.
The candidates were interviewed during 1992 93 and a list of selected candidates was sent to Government for the 10 quota of direct recruits.
How the appeal have arisen SWP 522/90 was filed in the High Court by the direct recruit Assistant Engineers of the Mechanical department to fix a seniority and to declare that they were entitled to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers w.e.f.
In 1987, with a view to remove stagnation, the Government issued two orders one on 29.6.87 and another on 29.10.87, the latter in supercession of the former and re organised the service as follows a the existing post of Assistant Engineer was upgraded and re designated as Assistant Executive Engineer, to be kept in charge of a sub Division.
The direct recruits tiled the various SWPs 522/90, 227/97,47/98, 1869/ 97, 824 B/94 challenging the ad hoc promotion of the Assistant Engineers made by Government without companysulting the service Commission beyond six months and companytended that companytinuance of ad hoc stop gap promotion beyond six months as per the order issued during 1987 to 1996 was number est and void and companyld number be subject of regularisation.
227/97 and 47/98 were filed by direct recruit Assistant Engineers Electrical seeking the quashing of Government Order dated 12.12.1997 companytaining the seniorty list and also to quash the Government Order dated 2.1.1998 whereby services of several ad hoc promotee Assistant Engineers of the Electrical wing were regularised.
These Civil Appeals arise out of several writ petitions filed in the High Court of Jammu Kashmir in which companymon judgment was delivered on 14.12.1998.
Stay orders in their Courts In this Court numberice in SLPs was issued on 7.4.1999 and the order of the High Court was stayed.
