The State Government thereafter prepared a seniority list of Assistant Engineers which reflected the seniority of appellants as having been appointed on and from November 22, 1972 and as per the ranking given in the said order of November 22, 1972.
Although it appears the appellants had also joined to the petition, those Junior Engineers who were promoted as Assistant Engi neers along with the appellants by the same order and whose seniority in the list had reflected their placement in the order of appointment, the challenge to the seniority of those Junior Engineers was given up at the time of the arguments before the High Court, and it was companyfined to the seniority of respondents 2 to 39 who were Overseers and were selected by the D.P.C. from their own quota as Assistant Engineers along with the appellants, and to the seniority of respondents 40 to 63 who were appointed by direct recruitment on August 7, 1972.
The High Court negatived both the challenges and dismissed the writ petition.
The first challenge companymon to the seniority of all the respondents 2 to 63 was based on the companytention that the appellants ad hoc service as Assistant Engineers from July 22, 1971, when they were promoted on ad hoc basis, to Novem ber, 22, 1972, on which date they were selected as regular appointees, was number taken into account.
N. Lekhi, M.K. Garg, Aman Lekhi and Lokesh Kumar for the appellants.
The appellants challenged the seniority list before the High Court by a writ petition.
Thereafter, on November 22, 1972 respondents 2 to 39 and the appellants were selected as Assistant Engineers by the D.P.C. On the same date, the State Government issued an order of appointment of the appellants and respondents 2 to 39 in which appellant number 1 was shown at Serial No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Misc.
The second challenge was companyfined to the seniority given to respondents 2 to 39 by giving them a weightage of their experience as Overseers.
respondents 40 to 63 were appointed as Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment.
Hence the present appeal.
14 and appellant number 2 at Serial No.
It appears that while the appellants companytinued to act as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis, on August 7, 1972.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
15 10 of 1981.
Hence, taking resort to the Rule of Administrative Exigency companytained in the proviso to Rule 19 1 of the said Rules, the Government promoted some Junior Engineers including both the appellants as Assistant Engineers on July 22, 1971 on purely ad hoc basis.
931 of 1986.
W.P. No.
B. Datar, Sakesh Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Satish K. Agnihotri and Ashok Singh for the respondents.
They were thereafter appointed as Junior Engineers by direct recruitment the first appellant on August 29, 1969 and the second appellant on September 12, 1969.
Admittedly the appellants were two of such unqualified Junior Engineers since they had number companypleted their two years qualified service as Junior Engineers at the relevant time.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The two appellants in this case had joined the service in the Public Works Department of the respond ent Madhya Pradesh State, as Overseers.
They became qualified on August 22, 1971 and on September 11, 1971 respectively.
