Telangana High Court

K Venkateswarlu, Warangal Dist ... vs Prl Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad ... on 30 October, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.22790 of 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

"...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Seniority List issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.MD/CGMHRD/GMS/AS/Estt/POA/ 187A3/1713 dated 30.06.2017 in not placing the petitioners immediately below Sri D.Venkata Swamy and above the respondents 4 to 10 as illegal arbitrary unjust improper and contrary to law and set aside the same so far as petitioners placement is concerned and further declared that the petitioners are entitled to be placed in the seniority list dated 30.06.2017 above the respondents no 4 to 10..."

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1 Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Sub-Overseers

in erstwhile AP State Electricity Board('APSEB' for brevity) in

composite State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1990 and they were

promoted as Additional Assistant Engineers in the year 1998.

APSEB was divided as AP TRANSCO Ltd and AP GENCO Ltd.

Thereafter, AP Transco Ltd was divided into five parts viz., 1. AP

TRANSCO Ltd, 2. AP CPDCL Ltd, 3. AP EPDCL Ltd, 4. AP SPDCL

Ltd, 5. AP NPDCL Ltd.

2.2 Petitioner No.1 was allotted to APCPDCL Ltd(presently

TSCPDCL) and petitioner No.2 was allotted to AP NPDCL Ltd

(presently TS NPDCL). Later petitioner No.1 was transferred to

respondent company and he joined on 17.01.2004. The

petitioners have submitted representation to respondent company

for conversion of their services from Additional Assistant Engineer

to Assistant Engineer as they acquired AMIE qualification.

Accordingly their services were converted as Assistant Engineers

(ELECL) w.e.f. 12.12.2004, 08.06.2005 and their probation was

declared w.e.f. 06.02.2003, 11.03.2003 respectively.



2.3    On 15.04.2006, respondent Company issued provisional

seniority     list      of      AEs(Elecl).,     through        Memo

No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-I/158-PO.I/06,               wherein     the

petitioner's names are placed at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 and unofficial

respondents names were shown at Serial Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and

11. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued another revised seniority

list on 23.07.2007, wherein the petitioners are placed at Sl.Nos.12

and 13 and respondent Nos.4 to 10 names were placed at Serial

Nos.4, 2, 8, 6, 9 and 10 respectively. Petitioners have submitted

objections to the same on 30.07.2007. Respondent Company has

confirmed the provisional seniority list on 17.08.2007, while

rejecting the objections of the petitioners stating that as on date of

conversion of the petitioners, the unofficial respondents were

approved probationers and the petitioners were placed below the

approved probationers. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed

review petition and representation before respondent Nos.2 and 3,

requesting them to review the seniority list dated 17.08.2007 and

the same was rejected on 06.03.2017. Respondent Company

communicated provisional Seniority list on 14.06.2017, in respect

of Assistant Divisional Engineer as on 31.08.2009, wherein the

petitioners names are shown at Sl.Nos.33 and 34 and unofficial

respondent names are shown at Serial Nos.23 to 29. The

petitioners once again submitted their objections on 17.06.2017,

without properly considering the same, respondent No.2 issued

impugned Memo dated 30.06.2017, confirming Provisional

seniority list of Assistant Divisional Engineers. Questioning the

said seniority list, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

On 11.07.2017, this Court while ordering notice before admission

granted interim direction stating that "No further promotion shall

be made on the basis of impugned seniority list pending further

orders". On 30.06.2017, respondent Company issued Memo

confirming the provisional Seniority List as on 31.08.2009.

3. Heard Sri K.G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri K. Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.Vidya Sagar,

learned Senior Counsel representing Smt K.Udaya Sri, learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 10.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently

contended that respondent company after following the due

procedure prescribed under APSEB Service Regulations Part-

III('Regulations' for brevity) rightly issued the provisional seniority

list through memo dated 15.04.2006, in the cadre of Assistant

Engineers wherein the petitioners' names were placed at Sl.Nos.1

and 2. Thereafter, very same respondents issued another revised

seniority list on 22.06.2007, in the cadre of Assistant Engineers

placing the petitioners at Sl.Nos.11 and 12, where as the unofficial

respondents are placed at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 above the

petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued another revised

seniority list placing the unofficial respondents at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 6, 8,

9, 10 and 11 and the petitioner's names were placed at Sl.Nos.12

and 13 below the unofficial respondents. After issuance of the

provisional list dated 15.04.2006, at the instance of unofficial

respondents, respondent No.2 modified the seniority list and

issued two provisional seniority lists dated 22.06.2007 and

23.07.2007 and the same are contrary to law.

4.1 He further contended that the petitioners have submitted

detailed objections on 30.07.2007. Respondent Company without

considering the said objections and without giving any reasons

simply confirmed the provisional seniority list through proceedings

dated 17.08.2007, stating that unofficial respondents are approved

probationers. Thereafter, the petitioners filed review petition on

27.11.2015, before respondent No.3 to review the seniority list.

When respondent No.3 failed to consider the same, petitioners

have submitted representation dated 17.08.2016, to respondent

No.2 to review the provisional seniority list. Respondent No.2

without properly considering the said review petition rejected the

same on 06.03.2017 and issued provisional seniority list in the

cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer wherein the petitioners'

names were shown at Sl.Nos.33 and 34 and unofficial

respondents' names were placed at Sl.Nos.23 to 29 respectively.

Petitioners have submitted detailed objections on 16.06.2017.

Respondent No.2 without properly considering the same,

confirmed the provisional seniority list through memo dated

30.06.2017.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the

respondent Company ought to have placed the petitioners

immediately below one D.Venkataswamy. The Provisional

seniority list prepared and issued by respondent No.2 through

impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2017 is contrary to Rule 6(a) of

the Regulations.

4.3 He further contended that official respondents have not

published common seniority list in the cadre of Assistant

Divisional Engineer. However, basing on the impugned provisional

seniority list dated 30.06.2017 they are proceeding to effect the

promotions. In the absence of the common seniority list in the

above said cadre the respondent company is not entitled to

proceed further. Respondent No.2 without giving any reasons

simply rejected the review petition filed by the petitioner on

06.03.2017.

4.4 He also contended that the unofficial respondents joined in

respondent Company from 04.07.2003 to 01.07.2004 and they

have given undertaking to forego their earlier services. Hence, the

unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim seniority basing on

the earlier services rendered in APSEB and the respondent

company without taking into consideration of the undertaking

given by the unofficial respondents prepared provisional seniority

list and the same is contrary to law. He further contended that

unofficial respondents' probations were declared subsequent to the

petitioners and they are not entitled to claim seniority above the

petitioners. He further contended that unofficial respondents have

not questioned the condition mentioned in B.P.Ms.No.596 dated

06.06.1978 and same is binding upon them. Respondent No.2

without properly considering the objections submitted by the

petitioners to the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant

Divisional Engineer rejected the same on the ground of delay and

latches and the same is contrary to law. In support of his

contentions he relied upon following judgments:

1. Indu Shekhar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 1.

2. Amarjeet Singh and others Vs. Devi Ratan and others 2.

5. Per contra, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for unofficial respondents contended that the petitioners

are juniors than the unofficial respondents as Assistant Divisional

Engineers and the petitioners have not questioned the seniority list

which was published by respondent company on 17.08.2007, in

the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Elecl) and the same has become

final and binding upon the petitioners and they are not entitled to

question the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant

Divisional Engineer dated 30.06.2017.

1 2006 8 SC 129 2 2010 1 SCC 417

5.1 He further contended that the objections raised by the

petitioners were rejected by respondent No.2 through Memo

No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS(Estt.)/PO-A/37-A3/17, dated

06.03.2017 and the said rejection order also not questioned and

they filed the present writ petition questioning provisional seniority

list in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer, confirming the

provisional seniority list dated 14.06.2017, through impugned

memo dated 30.06.2017. Hence on both grounds the writ petition

filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law.

5.2 He further contended that for the post of Assistant

Divisional Engineer (ADE) employee should have any engineering

degree viz., B.Tech/B.E/AMIE and the petitioner No.1 acquired

requisite qualification to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer

i.e., AMIE on 12.12.2004 and petitioner No.2 on 08.06.2005.

Basing on their qualifications, the respondent company has rightly

prepared and issued the provisional seniority list in the cadre of

Assistant Divisional Engineer. He further submits that respondent

company issued memo dated 17.08.2007 confirming provisional

seniority list and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said

impugned memo. In support of his contention he relied upon the

judgment in P.Sudhakar Rao and others Vs. U. Govinda Rao

and others 3.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent

Company submits that the petitioners have submitted their

representation for conversion of their services from Additional

Assistant Engineer to Assistant Engineer post basing on their

AIME qualification which was acquired on 12.12.2004 and

08.06.2005 and basing on the same, their services were converted

as Assistant Engineer (Elecl) and their probation was declared in

the cadre of AE on 06.02.2003 and 11.03.2003. He further

contended that the petitioner No.1 was transferred from AP

Transco in terms of TOO Ms. No.244 dated 13.12.2002 and

accepted the terms and conditions that they have to forego their

lien and seniority in the category or grade in the class of Service of

AP Transco and accepted last rank in the seniority fixed for that

category or grade in the Class of service or department services in

APNPDCL. Pursuant to the same, respondent Company prepared

provisional seniority list of AEs as on 15.04.2006 and called

objections and after considering the objections and after due

verification of the records, the respondent Company issued revised

seniority list on 22.06.2007 and 23.07.2007. Respondent

3 2013 8 SCC 693

Company after considering the objections of the petitioner, issued

proceedings dated 17.08.2007, rejecting the claim of the

petitioners wherein specifically stated that unofficial respondents

are approved probationers and they were rightly placed above the

petitioners and provisional seniority list dated 23.07.2007 is

confirmed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer.

6.1 He further submits that respondent No.2 once again

examined the representation of the petitioners and passed order

rejecting the claim of the petitioners through order 06.03.2017 and

the same has become final. Thereafter, respondent Company

communicated the provisional seniority list in the cadre of

Assistant Divisional Engineer and after considering the objections

submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 confirmed and issued

impugned memo dated 14.06.2017. The petitioners have accepted

the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineer which was

finalized on 17.08.2007 and they are not entitled to question the

provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Divisional

Engineer and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be

dismissed.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on

record, following points arises for consideration:

i. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim seniority below Sri D.Venkataswamy and above unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 10 in the provisional seniority list issued by respondent No.2 through impugned memo dated 30.06.2017?

ii. Whether provisional seniority list dated 30.06.2017 issued by respondent No.2 is valid under law especially as per APSEB Service Regulations Part 3?

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition?

Point Nos.(i) to (iii)

8. It is undisputed fact that the petitioners were appointed as

Sub-overseers in erstwhile APSEB in the composite State of AP in

the year 1990 and thereafter, they were promoted to the post of

Additional Assistant Engineer in the year 1998. APSEB was

unbundled as AP TRANSCO Ltd and AP GENCO Ltd. Thereafter,

AP TRANSCO Ltd was divided into five parts viz., 1. AP

TRANSCO Ltd, 2. AP CPDCL Ltd, 3. AP EPDCL Ltd, 4. AP SPDCL

Ltd, 5. AP NPDCL Ltd. Later, petitioner No.1 was transferred to

respondent company with a condition of foregoing the seniority in

the cadre of AAE and to take last rank in the cadre of AAE in

APNPDCL. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 joined in respondent

Company on 17.01.2004. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 acquired AMIE

qualification on 12.12.2004 and 08.06.2005 and basing on their

qualification they were converted as Assistant Engineers w.e.f

12.12.2004 and 08.06.2005.

9. It also appears from the record that AP TRANSCO framed

guidelines in T.O.O(Per Addl.Secy)Ms.No.244, dated 13.12.2002,

for absorption of services of employee on transfer from one

company to another company. Pursuant to the same, unofficial

respondents were transferred from other companies to respondent

company and joined in the cadre of AE from 04.07.2003 to

01.07.2004, whereas the petitioner No.1 joined as AE on

17.01.2004 and their probation was also declared on 06.02.2003

and 11.03.2003. The above said guidelines issued under

T.O.O.Ms.No.244 dated 13.12.2002 specifically says that the

absorption of services of an employee of a particular category or

grade in a class of a service in a company to an equivalent

category or grade in a class of the same service or different service

can be considered, subject to condition that the employee forfeits

his lien and seniority on a permanent or officiating post in the

category or grade in the class of the service in the company to which

he belongs and accepts the last rank in the seniority fixed for that

category or grade in the class of the service or a different service in

the other (transferee) company with reference to the date of his

appointment in the latter (transferred) company.

10 Respondent No.2 issued provisional seniority list in the

cadre of AE on 15.04.2006, wherein the petitioners names were

placed at Serial Nos.1 and 2 and pursuant to the objections made

by unofficial respondents and others, respondent No.2 after due

verification had issued revised provisional seniority lists on

22.06.2007 and 23.07.2007 wherein, the unofficial respondents'

names were placed above the petitioners' names. It further

appears from the records that respondent No.2 after considering

the objections of the petitioners dated 30.07.2007, passed memo

dated 17.08.2007, rejecting the objections and confirming the

provisional seniority list stating that unofficial respondents are

approved probationers and they were rightly placed above the

petitioners in the provisional seniority list and further observed

that as per the guidelines issued in B.P.Ms.No.596, dated

06.06.1978, half of the service rendered by the above individuals

in the cadre of AEE prior to acquisition of degree qualification,

subject to maximum of four years, shall be reckoned for fixation of

seniority in the cadre of AE. As per the said rule, the seniority of

the petitioners has to be fixed from 02.11.2001 and 12.03.2002,

respectively and their seniority has to be fixed below the regular

AE's. It further appears from the records that seniority list in the

cadre of Assistant Engineers was finalized on 17.08.2007 and the

same has become final and the petitioners have accepted the said

seniority list and the petitioners have not questioned the said

proceedings and the same has become final in the year 2007. It

further reveals from the record that subsequent to the publication

of the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineer

on 17.08.2007, the petitioners were promoted to the post of

Assistant Divisional Engineer on 12.02.2009. Thereafter, they

submitted review petition, after lapse of more than eight years

before respondent No.3, seeking review in fixing the seniority in

the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and also submitted

representation on 17.08.2016 and the same was rejected on

06.03.2017, by respondent No.2. The said rejection order was

unchallenged and the same has become final.

11. Respondent company communicated the provisional

seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer as on

14.06.2017 wherein the unofficial respondents' names were placed

at Sl.Nos.23 to 29 whereas the petitioners' names were placed at

Sl.Nos.33 and 34. It further appears from the records that

respondent No.2 after considering the objections submitted by the

petitioners dated 16.06.2017, confirmed the provisional seniority

list in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer on 30.06.2017.

Thereafter, issued final seniority list confirming the provisional

seniority list dated 31.08.2009. It is already stated supra that the

petitioners have not questioned the seniority list in the cadre of

Assistant Engineer which was finalized on 17.08.2007 and

subsequent rejection order passed by respondent No.2 dated

06.03.2017. The petitioners are not entitled to question the

subsequent promotion and the provisional seniority list issued by

respondent Company in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer,

as the said seniority list was prepared basing on the seniority list

confirmed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. The provisional

seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer is

consequent to the seniority list prepared in the cadre of Assistant

Engineer. Unless and until the petitioners challenge the earlier

seniority list which was prepared and finalized in the category of

Assistant Engineer dated 17.08.2007, they are not entitled to

question the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Divisional

Engineer under law.

12. It is also relevant to mention here that Regulations, Part III,

Annexure-III specifically states that for holding the post of

Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by direct recruitment or recruitment

by transfer, a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical

Electronics Engineering of a University in India established or

incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State

Act or any other qualification recognized as equivalent thereto is

required. The petitioners have acquired the requisite qualification

on 12.12.2004 and 08.06.2005 and they are not entitled to claim

their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer prior to acquiring

qualification and the respondent company has rightly considered

the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant

Divisional Engineer and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief

sought in this writ petition. The petitioners are entitled seniority

from the date of acquiring the requisite qualification and they are

not entitled to retrospective seniority.

13. In Indu Shekhar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.

and others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

28. In Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. [(1994) 2 SCC 622 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 716 : (1994) 27 ATC 166] this Court held: (SCC p. 627, para 10)

"It is now almost settled that seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference to the date of his entry in the service which will be consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Of course, if the circumstances so require a group of persons can be treated a class separate from the rest for

any preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their seniority. But, whether such group of persons belong to a special class for any special treatment in matters of seniority has to be decided on objective consideration and on taking into account relevant factors which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Normally, such classification should be by statutory rule or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The far-reaching implication of such rules need not be impressed because they purport to affect the seniority of persons who are already in service. For promotional posts, generally the rule regarding merit and ability or seniority-cum-merit is followed in most of the services. As such the seniority of an employee in the later case is material and relevant to further his career which can be affected by factors, which can be held to be reasonable and rational."

14. In Amarjeet Singh and others Vs. Devi Ratan and

others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

9. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the action of the State authorities has been in flagrant violation of the orders passed by this Court as promotion of the respondents to the post of AEC had been subject to the decision of the special leave petition, which stood dismissed. The said respondents ought to have been reverted forthwith after dismissal of the said petition. The question of permitting them to continue even after dismissal of the petition by this Court was not required and thus, could not be justified. Promotions made by DPC under the unamended Rules on the basis of "merit" could not be equated to the promotions made by another DPC under the amended Rules on the basis of "seniority subject to rejection of unfit" held at a later stage. The High Court erred in considering both the promotions to have been made notionally from one and the same date. In such a fact situation, the question of interpreting the statutory rules was an unwarranted exercise. The appellants had been promoted retrospectively, given notional promotion from the date much earlier than the respondents. Therefore, direction to fix the seniority in view of their inter se seniority as it existed in the feeding cadre was not permissible. The appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside along with the consequential seniority list dated 26-7-2002. The seniority list dated 12-7-2000 has to be upheld and remain intact.

26. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants and the respondents have been considered by DPC held on 19-12-1998 to fill up forty-two vacancies under the unamended Rules. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that only thirty candidates/appellants were found suitable by DPC held on 19-12-1998 and had been promoted under the unamended Rules on the criterion of "merit". The respondents had been promoted under the amended Rules by carrying forward twelve vacancies by another DPC held subsequently on 22-1-1999 on a different criterion i.e. "seniority subject to rejection of unfit". Indisputably, these twelve officers/respondents were found unsuitable for promotion under the unamended Rules by DPC held on 19-12-1998. Subsequent thereto, both sets of officers had been promoted notionally from the back dates. The appellants had been given promotions as AEC against the vacancies for the year 1994-1995 while the respondents were given notional promotions against the vacancies for the years 1996 and 1997. The seniority list dated 12-7-2000 was prepared accordingly. As the appellants had been given notional promotion w.e.f. 6-12- 1995 and the respondents w.e.f. 28-2-1997 and 13-8-1997, their inter se seniority had rightly been determined while issuing the seniority list dated 12-7-2000.

27. The law permits promotion with retrospective effect only in exceptional circumstances when there has been some legal impediment in making the promotions, like an intervention by the court. An officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of other officers who had been appointed prior to him. "The latecomers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue." [Vide S.P. Kapoor (Dr.) v. State of H.P. [(1981) 4 SCC 716 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 14 : AIR 1981 SC 2181] ; ShitlaPrasad Shukla v. State of U.P. [1986 Supp SCC 185 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 584 : (1986) 1 ATC 236 : AIR 1986 SC 1859] (SCC p. 190, para 10) and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 346 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 116] ]

34. Admittedly, promotions were not made with effect from one and the same date. The appellants and the respondents were promoted against the vacancies which had occurred in different recruitment years under different Rules and on different criteria. Thus, the respondents would rank below the appellants in seniority. Therefore, there could be no justification to hold that their inter se seniority in the feeding cadre would be relevant for determining the seniority of AECs. More so, had the interim order not been passed by this Court, the appellants could have been promoted under the unamended

Rules much earlier. Thus, they are entitled for equitable relief, as the effect of the interim order of this Court was required to be neutralised. The appellants who had been promoted with an earlier date, thus, are bound to be senior than the respondents who had been promoted with respect from a later date. No employee can claim seniority prior to the date of his birth in the cadre.

35. In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11-4-2002 is set aside. The seniority list dated 12-7-2000 is directed to prevail and fresh seniority list dated 26-7-2002 is hereby quashed. No orders as to costs.

15. The judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioners

are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on

the sole ground that as per the B.P.Ms.No.596, dated 06.06.1978,

employee should have possessed an Engineering Degree

qualification to the post of ADE and the petitioners acquired

required qualification on 12.12.2004 and 08.06.2005 to the post of

ADE and basing on their qualification considered the claim of the

petitioners for promotion to the post of ADE and issued the

provisional seniority list.

16. In P.Sudhakar Rao and others Vs. U. Govinda Rao and

others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the weightage of

service given to the Supervisors can be taken advantage of only for

the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant

Engineer. The weightage cannot be utilized for obtaining

retrospective seniority over and above the existing Junior

Engineers:

50. The facts of the appeals before us show that at least some of the Supervisors were given retrospective seniority on the date when they were not even eligible for appointment as Junior Engineers. The precedents referred to above show that this is impermissible. In addition as pointed out by the High Court, there is no indication of the vacancy position, that is, whether the Supervisors could be adjusted in the grade of Junior Engineers from the date on which they were given notional retrospective seniority. There is also no indication whether the quota of vacancies for Supervisors was adhered to as on the date on which they were given notional retrospective seniority. The case law suggests that this is an important factor to be considered. Finally, it is quite clear that the grant of retrospective seniority to the Supervisors has adversely impacted on the promotion chances of the Junior Engineers by bringing them down in seniority. This too is impermissible.

Conclusion

53. For the reasons aforesaid, we see no occasion for interfering with the view taken by the High Court to the effect that the grant of retrospective seniority to the Supervisors on their appointment as Junior Engineers violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The weightage of service given to the Supervisors can be taken advantage of only for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The weightage cannot be utilised for obtaining retrospective seniority over and above the existing Junior Engineers.

17. It is already stated supra that seniority list in the cadre of

Assistant Engineers (Electrical) published by the respondent

Company on 17.08.2007 has become final and thereafter

respondent No.2 passed order dated 06.03.2017 rejecting the

objections of the petitioners. The petitioners have neither

questioned the seniority list dated 17.08.2007, nor rejection orders

dated 06.03.2017 and the same are binding upon the petitioners.

Respondent Company rightly prepared the seniority list in the

cadre of Assistant Engineer for promotion of ADE as per the

regulations, especially the petitioners acquired the requisite AIME

qualification on 12.12.2004 and 08.06.2005 and the petitioners

are not entitled to relief sought in the writ petition.