Service
Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works Department] Group-B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983
Seniority
Computation
Ad-hoc service benefit
Appellants after their recruitment on temporary and ad-hoc basis worked on probation for a period of two years and on completion of the probation period their cases were considered by the State Public Service Commission and the appointment of the appellants was regularised as Assistant Engineer [Civil] against direct recruitment quota
In year 1988, pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of the Assistant Engineers, respondent no. 1 submitted his application and he was appointed
Thereafter, several provisional seniority lists were published showing the names of the appellants as senior to respondent no.1 and despite such publication, no objection was raised by the respondent no. 1
In the final seniority list also the names of the appellants were shown senior to the respondent no. 1
Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition in 2001 challenging the seniority position given to the appellants
Single Judge of the HC allowed the writ petition and directed the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to make necessary changes in the seniority list by recasting the same by accepting the date of appointment of the respondent no.1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of the appellants from the respective dates of their regularization and that the ad-hoc period of service rendered by them would not be counted towards the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer
Writ appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed
Hence, present appeal
Held, fact that their services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also totally ignored by the HC
Also the fact that when the respondent no. 1 was put on probation, the appellants had successfully completed their probation
Thus, for all purposes at all times, the appellants were senior to the respondent no. 1
Order of regularization having become final and binding on all concerned could not have been ignored and implicitly set aside by the HC on a ground that the initial appointment of the appellants was de hors the Rules, which is totally a non-existent ground
It is, thus, clearly established that the respondent no. 1 was inducted into Government service by a separate mode of recruitment than that of the appellants and therefore their cases cannot be equated
Further, relied on SC judgment in Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors. 1999 INDLAW SC 216 wherein it was held that even in cases of probation or officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list
Impugned order of HC set aside
Appeal allowed.
