JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-The point involved in these 4 appeals being the same they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants (in all eleven) started their career as Junior Engineers in the Central Public Works Department. On formation of P&T (Civil Wing) on 1.7.1963, the construction and maintenance work of P&T buildings was taken over from C.P.W.D. The services of the Junior Engineers (Elect.) of C.P.W.D. who were earlier looking after the buildings of P&T were transferred to the P&T (Civil Wing). Initially, they were treated on deputation without any deputation allowance but in 1969 they were absorbed in the P&T Department and were also designated as Section Officers. They were promoted as Assistant Engineers (Elect.), on ad hoc basis between 1970 to 1977. All of them were appointed as A.Es. (E) on regular basis with effect from 20.3.1978. At that time it was directed that their names shall be arranged in order of their seniority in the grade of Assistant Engineers. Their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits was to be fixed subsequently.

3. A provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was prepared in 1986 and finalised in 1987. It was challenged before the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 373 of 1987. The Tribunal quashed it in so far as it determined seniority between direct recruits and promotee Assistant Engineers. The department was directed to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with O.M. dated 22.12.59 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the observations made in its judgment. Accordingly a revised seniority list was prepared and notified on 22.5.92. The new seniority list was prepared by following the principle of quota and rota prescribed by the said O.M. dated 22.12.59 as the Tribunal had held that quota rota system had not broken down. In the new seniority list the date of regular appointment of the appellants was shown as 20.3.78.

4. The appellants were not satisfied with the new seniority list; and therefore, they challenged it before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi. The appellants sought a direction to determine their seniority by taking into consideration their uninterrupted and continuous ad hoc service. They wanted this relief even if there was break down of the quota rota rule. They had also prayed for other consequential reliefs. The contention of the appellants was that there was no break down of the quota rota rule, that they were appointed against regular vacancies on their being found fit and suitable by Departmental Promotion Committee and that their appointments were made in accordance with the rules prevailing then.

5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the reasons for making ad hoc appointments of the appellants and the procedure followed for that purpose, the orders of their appointments, proceedings of the meeting of the D.P.C. in February-March 1978 pursuant to which the regular appointments were made and conduct of the appellants in that they had offered themselves for the test held for making regular promotions, came to the conclusion that the appointments of the appellants were not only ad hoc but also by way of stop gap arrangement in order to meet with the exigencies of service due to heavy constructional activity undertaken by the P&T (Civil Wing) at the relevant time. The Tribunal also held that the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 373 of 1987 having become final and conclusive it had to proceed on the basis that there was no break down of the quota and rota rule. On these premises the Tribunal further held that the case of the appellants is governed by proposition A laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra1, and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation for the purpose of considering their seniority. The Tribunal also examined the case of the appellant