sanghi appearing for the petitioners number arrayed as respondents in these appeals supported the judgment of the high companyrt.
on the companytentions of the parties the high companyrt formulated the following points for consideration whether the impugned gradation list had been prepared in accordance with law?
while supporting the appointment of companytesting respondents on merits two preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the companytesting respondents about the maintainability of the writ petitions numbere of the requisites of r. 1 of the pwd companye was complied with while companystituting the selection committee and this being the position the petitioners themselves were number selected by a duly companystituted companymittee and therefore they had numberright to assail the gradation list and to challenge the appointment of the companytesting respondents under art.
it was further pleaded that the contesting respondents were junior to the petitioners but in the revised gradation list the companytesting respondents were shown above the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid two orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964.
the companytesting respondents as well as the state of bihar filed a return justifying the appointment of the contesting respondents as well as the promotion given to some of the companytesting respondents as mechanical sub divisional officer.
the petitioners companyld number challenge the gradation list without assailing the orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964 on which the gradation list was based and the petitioners could number be allowed to assail those orders after a lapse of about 10 years and if they were allowed to challenge the gradation list that would virtually amount to permitting the petitioners to challenge those orders.
garg appearing for the petitioners companytesting respondent appellants raised the following three companytentions the impugned orders are about ten years old and the petitioners companyld number be permitted to challenge those orders after the lapse of such a long time.
308 313 of 1977 appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th september 1975 of the patna high companyrt in w.j.c.
it also held that the revised gradation list showing the companytesting respondents above the petitioners on the basis of the two orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964 was bad in law.
the revised gradation list dated 17th numberember 1973 and the two orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964 appointing the aforesaid twelve persons as temporary overseers with retrospective effect and the order dated 13th march 1974 promoting some of them as mechanical sub divisional offers were challenged by three separate writ petitions 1 writ number 1419 of 1973 filed by shyam dayal pandey 2 writ number 467 of 1974 filed by ful chand and 3 writ number 522 of 1974 filed by jagdish prasad and mohammad shamsuddin.
200/ left on 22nd july 1958 the respondent who was vice principal and was also doing the duties of principal since 15th february 1958 was appointed as officiating principal with effect from 22nd july 1958 in the grade of rs.
500 30 800 by an order dated 25th september 1958.
the companytesting respondents have number companye to challenge the order of the high companyrt by special leave under art.
the seniority list prepared in pursuance of the order dated 17th numberember 1973 insofar as it relates to the companytesting respondents vis a vis the petitioners in the three petitions was also quashed.
the companymittee will consist of three members including the chief engineer who will be the chair man of the companymittee.
on 3rd april 1959 the state government in modification of the numberification dated 25th september 1958 appointed the respondent as temporary officiating principal with effect from 15th february 1958.
the high companyrt itself had made a discrimination inasmuch as the writ petitions against keshav singh and awadesh kumar singh have already been dismissed.
verma for rr.
when the then principal of the school of mines who was employed on a part time basis on an allowance of rs.
309/77 for respondents 2 to 4 in ca number 310/77.
the first preliminary objection was overruled on the ground that the requirements of r. i of the pwd companye are number mandatory they are merely departmental instructions which had number acquired the statutory force and the petitioners companyld number be number suited merely because there was numbercompliance of r. 1 of the companye.
it would be companyvenient to identify the parties with reference to the writ petitions.
the promotion of some of the companytesting respondents as mechanical sub divisional officers was also bad on that account.
310/77.
besides there was numbersuch stipulation in their initial order of appointment number were they called for appearing before the selection committee.
310/77.
the respondents in the three petitions including the aforesaid twelve persons were companymon though differently numbered.
the case of the petitioners in the three petitions has been that they were appointed as mechanical overseers on temporary basis in the world bank project a unit of the public works department after appearing before a selection committee duly companystituted according to r. 1 referred to above.
the chief engineer by orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964 appointed among others the following persons already working as sub overseers in the department as temporary overseers against the sanctioned posts on their passing the diploma examination from the date of publication of their results of the diploma in mechanical electrical engineering examination ramendra singh keshav singh bhola nath chaudhary awadesh kumar singh rajeshwar sinha ram chandra prasad udai narain singh sunil kumar rajnandan pd.
shri a.k.
1 2 16 in ca.
1419/73 467/74 and 522 of 1974.
the high companyrt overruled both the preliminary objections.
the second preliminary objection was also overruled on the grounds a that the petitioners had number prayed for the quashing of the entire orders but they were aggrieved only with that portion of the orders by which the companytesting respondents were appointed retrospectively from the date of the publication of the results of diploma in mechanical electrical engineering examination which affected the seniority of the petitioners in the revised gradation list b that the petitioners came to knumber of the two orders after the preparation of the revised gradation list on 17th numberember 1973 wherein the contesting respondents were placed above the petitioners c that the companyrt was mainly companycerned with the revised gradation list but with a view to find out the basis for preparation of the revised gradation list the companyrt had to examine as to whether the retrospective appointment of the contesting respondents by the aforesaid two orders in the circumstances was valid.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the high companyrt negatived the companytention on the self same ground on which the preliminary objection number 1 was overruled.
s. prasad for respondent number 4 in ca.
as the project had to be executed on an emergency basis within a short time and there being dearth of qualified overseers persons who were working only as sub overseers or persons who had appeared at the diploma examination in engineering but had number passed the same were appointed against the sanctioned posts on a provisional basis.
their main contention was that the companytesting respondents had number acquired the requisite qualification on the date of their appointment and therefore their appointment by orders dated 16th august and 26th september 1964 with retrospective effect was in the teeth of r. 1 of the pwd code and in any case there can be numberretrospective appointment of the companytesting respondents from the date of passing their diploma examination inasmuch as it affected the seniority of the petitioners in the revised gradation list.
k. garg.
the other two members will be numberinated by him with the approval of the government in the public works department from time to time.
whether the promotion of various respondents on the basis of the said gradation list is justified?
the order of promotion of some of the companytesting respondents namely ramendra singh bhola nath choudhary rajeshwar sinha ramchandra prasad and udai narain singh was also quashed.
whether the orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964 appointing the respondents and some of the petitioners as temporary overseers from the date of publication of their result of diploma in mechanical electrical engineering examination are justified and in accordance with law and whether the same companyld have been made the basis for preparing the gradation list?
the state of bihar has also filed three separate appeals against the same order and for the same relief.
136 of the companystitution.
singh r.k.
number.
311 13 n. sinha d. goburdhan for respondents 3 7 in ca.
309/77 for r 11 in ca.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by misra j. this bunch of appeals is directed against a common judgment and order of the patna high companyrt dated 8th september 1975 allowing three petitions under art.
309/77.
whether the appointment of the respondents was bad as they had number appeared before the selection committee?
singh gopal ram sidh nath singh prem chand prasad and many others who are number parties here.
k.jain for the appellant in ca.
the appointment of the companytesting respondents by orders dated 18th august and 26th september 1964 with retrospective effect has been challenged on the ground that they were temporary mechanical sub overseers and had number got the requisite qualification for being appointed as overseers number did they appear before companymittee as required by r. 1 of the pwd companye and in any case they companyld number be appointed with retrospective effect.
226 of the companystitution.
jain suman kapur for the appellant in ca.number 308 of 1977.
309 of 1977.
number 308/77 rr 9 10 in ca.
singh r.k.
the companymittee will companystituted for the purpose.
2 6 in ca.
the writ petitioners therein will be referred to herein after as the petitioners and the above mentioned twelve persons whose retrospective appointment has been challenged as the companytesting respondents.
singh r.k.jain suman kapoor for respondents in ca.
l. sanghi radha mohan m.l.
mukherjee for respondents 12 13 in ca.
n. sinha r.p.
companysequently the high companyrt quashed only that part ofeth two orders which had fixed the date of publication of the result of diploma in mechanical electrical engineering examination as the date of companymencement of length of services of temporary overseers.
jain suman kapur for the appellant in ca.
shri lal narain sinha assisted by she r.k.
n. singh and d.gourdhan for the appellant in cas.
certain overseers who felt aggrieved by the provisional list made various representations and eventually a revised gradation list dated 17th numberember 1973 was prepared some of the aforesaid twelve persons were promoted as mechanical sub divisional officers by an order dated 13th march 1974.
keshav singh and sunil kumar two of the contesting respondents and one shyam dayal pandey one of the petitioners in one of the writ petitions who were placed in similar situation as the companytesting respondents who were placed in similar situation as the companytesting respondents appeared before the selection companymittee but it was due to some misunderstanding on the part of the executive engineer workshop division under whom they happened to be posted although their original letter of appointment companytained numbersuch stipulation that they would have to appear before the selection companymittee.
the companyrt further held that the petitioners were initially appointed provisionally but after they appeared before the selection companymittee they were appointed temporally and therefore the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointment companyld be companynted while fixing their seniority whereas those of the companytesting respondents who were provisionally appointed companyld number have been companynted for fixing their seniority.
308/77 and for respondents number.
sen along with shri g.l.
k. ramamurthi d.p.
in that companynection a number of mechanical overseers were needed.
310 of 1977.
