For the sake of companyvenience the facts may be taken from C.A. Nos.
There is numberdispute that accordingly the appellant was so absorbed on 26 5 1968.
26 5 1968 as against the respondent direct recruits who were also regularised but since November 1969, the appellant ought to have been shown senior to the respondents and the lower seniority given to him in the seniority list was against law.
As against this, the order dated 29 7 1970 regularised the respondent direct recruits from the dates mentioned against them in the order, showing that they were for the first time absorbed against the regular vacancies from the respective dates.
However, in appeal, the Division Bench reversed the said decision and held that the seniority of the respondent direct recruits would have to be companynted from the date of their initial appointment numberwithstanding the fact that they were regularised in 1969 after companypletion of the probation period.
The absorption was to be made in phases over a period of 11/2 years.
7 11 1967 with the usual companydition of their putting in satisfactory probation period of service of two years.
On this factual matrix, the companytroversy raised in the writ petitions before learned Single Judge of the High Court was that since the appellant was regularised w.e.f.
It is this decision which is challenged in the present appeals, the decision being companymon to both the appeals.
For the first time, pursuant to the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 17 10 1967, the appellant along with other similarly situated employees, was directed to be absorbed against the vacancies then existing and arising thereafter.
The respondent direct recruits were appointed according to the rules w.e.f.
The learned Single Judge accepted the said companytention and allowed the writ petition.
They companypleted their probation period of service in November 1969 and by the order dated 29 7 1970, their services were regularised from various dates in November 1969.
989 90 of 1980.
The appellant was initially appointed in 1961 admittedly number according to rules, although the Recruitment Rules were in existence since 1960.
RAMAMURTHY V. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD ORDER The question that falls for companysideration in these appeals is whether the seniority of the respondent direct recruit employees is to be determined with reference to the date of their appointment or from the date of their companyfirmation after their probation period was over, as against the appellants who were admittedly regularised in service after the initial appointment of the respondents but before their companyfirmation.
