identical appointment orders was issued in favour of petitioner number 3 some of the petitioners including petitioners number.
it was admitted that petitioners number 1 and 2 were recruited after holding departmental companypetitive test on march 4 1960.
it was companyceded that all the petitioners except petitioner number 9 were approved by the public service companymission for regular appointment in the year 1963 to be specific on 30th september 1963 and they have companytinued uninterruptedly in the posts of khandsari inspectors.
14 and 16.
4 5 6 7 and 8 and some of the respondents including respondents number.
rai who was also recruited on march 23 1961 was shown at serial number17 and respondent number 5 was shown at serial number 8.
120 250 were created but according to him as the maximum of the scale was over rs.
petitioners number.
rani chabra gopal subramaniam and mrs.
200 right from its inception the post was within the purview of the public service companymission in view of regulation 5 a of appointment department misc.
4 5 6 7 and several others came to be appointed by the order dated march 23 1961.
petitioner number 3 who was then working as a clerk in cane union federation limited lucknumber was selected on may 24 1960 by applying a weeding out test.
it was further averred that within a period of one year and seven months from the date of appointment of the petitioners the state public service commission selected candidates to replace the already working unapproved licensing inspectors on the request of the department and sent a list of approved candidates on september 14 1961 but only 5 out of 44 such selected candidates joined and hence the department has to permit the petitioners to companytinue though according to the third respondent numberice of termination of service were served on some of the petitioners.
it was then stated that on the framing of the khandsari licensing scheme it became necessary to urgently appoint inspectors to implement the scheme and therefore the third respondent sugar commissioner as appointing authority pending regular selection through open companypetition by the public service commission proceeded to make appointments and the appointment of the petitioners were of a stopgap or ad hoc nature and that it created numberright to the post.
annexure b to the petition .
4 5 6 7 and 8 who were recruits of 1961 have been assigned places number.
petitioners number.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india k. ramamurthi mrs.
1 2 and 3 were appointed as khandsari inspectors between march and may 1960.
of p. and the secretary industries respectively of the u. government and respondent number 3 is the sugar companymissioner of u. p. the dispute amongst the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 19 is about inter se seniority between them in the cadre of khandsari inspectors.
order dated numberember 21 1959 temporary posts of licensing inspectors later redesignated as khandsari inspectors in the pay scale of rs.
5105 13 of 1983.
the rival companytentions would bring into focus the controversy between the parties.
thereafter some of the respondents were recruited as khandsari inspectors and some others who were recruited departmentally were approved by the public service commission.
original jurisdiction writ petition number.
the petitioners accordingly questioned by these writ petitions the validity and legality of the provisional seniority list asserting that as the final seniority list is number being drawn up and as the representations are being ignumbered and yet the provisional seniority list is being operated to the disadvantage of the petitioners thereby denying them equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion which action of the respondents 1 to 3 is violative of arts.
it was admitted that by the govt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. the petitioners in this group of petitions under art.
32 of the companystitution were inducted as khandsari inspectors between march 1960 and 1964.
4 to 8 were recruited after holding qualifying test and interview on 23rd march 1961 and petitioner number 9 was appointed as and by way of stopgap arrangement.
respondents 1 and 2 are the chief secretary govt.
number 99/ii b 151 60 dated january 29 1954 issued under the uttar pradesh public service companymission limitation of func tions regulations 1954.
it was companytended that the petitioners were appointed on an ad hoc and temporary basis as a measure of stopgap arrangement.
kailash narain pandey additional sugar companymissioner filed affidavit in opposition.
respondents 4 to 19 were also recruited as khandsari inspectors on different dates.
the grievance of the petitioners is that some of the petitioners have been assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they were recruited earlier and have been companytinuously in service.
yogeshwar prasad mrs.
c. malhotra and m. a. krishnamoorthy for the petitioners.
indra sawhney mrs.
number 4588 1 xviii a 680/59 dated numberember 21 1959.
negi who was recruited on march 23 1961 was assigned the place at serial number 15 and respondent number4 n. chaturvedi who was recruited on march 23 1961 was shown at serial number 6.
similarly respondent number 9 p.n.
to illustrate petitioners pointed out that petitioners 1 to 3 have been placed at serial number 2529 and 27 respectively though all of them were recruits of 1960 while respondent number 7 j.s.
sobha dikshit for the respondent.
