The appellant was subsequently promoted by the State Government to the next higher post of Drilling Engi neer in 1980 and further as Chief Drilling Engineer in 1984 which post he was holding at the date when his seniority came to be disturbed.
23rd August, 1973, it was felt that the two posts of Junior Engineers were filled by direct recruitment companytrary to the said rules which provided a ratio of 50 by promotion from the cadre of Drillers and 50 by direct recruitment.
Since both the posts were filled by direct recruitment, it was felt that this ratio was violated.
3 to 7 were placed above him in the seniority list.
29th September, 1972.
They companytended that since they were regular employees and had entered service before the appellant and were promoted to the post of As sistant Drilling Engineers along with the appellant they were clearly senior tothe appellant and the State Govern ment was, therefore, justified in showing them at Serial Nos.1 to 5 and the appellant at Serial No.
The appellant was shown senior to respond ents Nos.
3 to 7 under the provisional seniority list issued in 1987 and the final seniority sen iority list issued in 1989.
3 to 7 were working as Drillers before their promotions as Assistant Drilling Engineers.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.1990 of the Karna taka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.
Even in the final seniority list dated 4th May, 1989 he was shown junior to respondents Nos.
3 to 7 entered service as Drillers in 1964 65.
The Tribunal by its order dated 3rd September, 1990 rejected his application holding that his initial entry into service as a Junior Engineer was itself irregular and since he did number have the requisite experience of three years as a regular incumbent he was number qualified to be promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Drilling Engineer because his regular employ ment companyld only be related from the date of framing of the Recruitment Rules for the adre which came to be numberified on 23rd August, 1973.
23rd August, 1976 and hence respondents number.
The appellant and the respondents Nos.
The Office Order No.676/74 75 shows that the appellant and one another were working as Junior Engineers at the relevant time whereas respondents Nos.
3 and 5 companytested the appel lants claim while the State Government avoided entering into the arena by filing a companynter but instead presented the relevant files to the Tribunal.
The appellant, therefore, chal lenged the provisional seniority list as well as the final seniority list by an Application No.
The appellant was initially appointed on probation for one year and on his satisfactorily companypleting the probation period he was companytinued in service and was later companyfirmed in the said post by an order dated 13th June, 1974 w.e.f.
4th May, 1970.
The appointment order was issued after the Public Service Commission had advertised the post and had selected persons for appointment to the said posts.
The Director who was companypetent to make the appointment by virtue of Rule 7 issued a letter of appointment dated 24th April, 1970 whereapon the appellant took charge w.e.f.
29th September, 1972 it was number open to the Tribunal to hold that his appointment was irregular and thirdly, the Tribunal had erred in overlooking the guideline issued by the state Government on 5th July, 1976 which specifically provided that all appointments made by the Government or under specific authority of Government either by direct recruitment or by promotion or on or after 1st November, 1956 but prior to the companymencement of the Rules regarding recruitment to such cadres may be treated as regular.
3 to 7.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.4375 OF 1991.
Before the appellant was regularly recruited through the State Public Service Commission in the year 1970 the Director had apprised the Government of the action which he proposed to take to fill up the post.
3 and 5 are companycerned, they supported the action taken by the state Government in preparing both the impugued provisional as well as the final seniority lists.
Respondents Nos.3 to 7 were shown in both the provisional and final seniority list at Serial Nos.1 to 5 whereas the appellant was shown at Serial No.6.
K. Ramamurthy, S. Ravindra, K.V. Mohan and S.R. Bhat for the Appellant.
The appellant was throughout shown senior to respondents Nos.
The State Government did number approve of the Directors action in promoting the appellant since he was a local candidate and directed that he be reverted.
However, even though the Director had requested the State Government to frame Re cruitment Rules for the newly created post immediately after its creation, the Recruitment Rules were number finalised till the issuance of a Notification dated 26th June, 1973.
3 to 7 were promoted as Assistant Drilling Engineers by the Directors order dated 16th December, 1974.
After the recruitment rules for Junior Engineers Mechani cal were framed and brought into effect w.e.f.
Raju Ramachandran, M. Veerappa and Kh.
However, numbersuch reversion took place.
Thus, for the first time, since his regular appointment in the year 1970, he was shown junior to respondents Nos.
The appellant who was then working as a Rigman in the Drill ing Unit of the Department was appointed Junior Engineer Mechanical in the scale of Rs.
200 375 on one of the said posts by an order dated 14th August, 1967 issued by the Director of the department.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
2564 of 1989.
The factual background which has given rise to this companytroversy, briefly stated, is as under In the year 1966 posts of Junior Engineer Mechanical were created in the Department of Mines and Geology Ground Water Surveys and Drilling Unit of the State of Karnataka.
Respondents Nos.
Nobin Singh P. for the Respondents.
2564 of 1989 preferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
The companytroversy which we are required to resolve in this appeal by special leave is regarding the appellants senior ity vis a vis respondents Nos.3 to 7.
3 to 7 in the said cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineers.
Subsequently, he was regularly recruited through the State Public Service Commission in the said post w.e.f.
