JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.— These three appeals are against the judgment of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 936 of 1979. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the gradation lists of Sub-Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and Sub-Assistant Engineers (Mechanical), Annexures 5 and 6 before the High Court and the promotions given to the respondents 4 and 5 therein Annexure 7. The government and the corporation were directed to consider the question of promotion treating the writ petitioner and the respondents as belonging to two cadres of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and (Mechanical). These three appeals were filed, one by the Corporation, another by the State Government and the third one by the aggrieved employees.

2. The facts are simple. Shri Bidura Charan Mohapatra, respondent 6/appellant 1 in the third appeal, a diploma holder in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, was appointed as Mechanical Supervisor on August 24, 1962 in the pay scale of Rs 215-396. Shri Parijay Ray, respondent 7/appellant 2, equally possessed of diploma in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, was appointed in the same scale of pay as a Mechanical Supervisor on November 5, 1962. Shri P.K. Mohanty, the writ petitioner in the High Court and the respondent in these appeals holds diploma in Electrical Engineering and was appointed as Hand Driller in the pay scale of Rs 100-155, on October 23, 1963 and Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the pay scale of Rs 185-325 on September 1, 1965. The Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd., a part of the government organisation, was carved out separately and the three persons along with others were drawn on deputation from the government service to the Corporation in the year 1963. Three categories of services were existing in the Corporation, namely, Mechanical, Electrical and Mechanical-Electrical composite unit. In the year 1971, three tentative gradation lists were prepared for classification purpose of those three divisions as Sub-Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Supervisors, Electrical and Mechanical which includes Electrical Supervisors, Mechanical Supervisors, Drilling Supervisors and Foreman-cum-Instructors. In 1977 the Corporation decided to reorganise its set up and to classify the employees into two categories, namely, Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Sub-Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) to attend to the respective works, namely, mechanical and electrical. The corporation invited objections to amalgamate Composite Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Diploma Holders, either in Electrical or Mechanical Wing. Options were called for from the persons holding only the composite diploma, namely, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Supervisors. The respondent-writ petitioner did not file any objection to the scheme. On consideration of the objections filed by others, two gradation lists were prepared in the order of seniority from the respective dates of appointment to the posts and higher scale of pay held by respective persons and fitted them in the respective lists as per options. As stated earlier the respondent questioned their gradation in the Electrical Wing in the High Court and the High Court quashed it and the appellants obtained leave of this Court under Article 136.

3. The contention of the appellants is that the respondent has no right to be kept in a particular wing. The corporation, with a view to create two categories, namely, Mechanical and Electrical sought to amalgamate the third Composite Mechanical/Electrical Wing and sought for options from the persons holding the composite posts. This was taken due to administrative exigency. The corporation has power to carve out by amalgamating three sections, into two divisions and to prepare the seniority lists from the respective date of their initial appointment, etc. The High Court, therefore, was unjustified to quash the gradation lists. It was contended for the respondent by Shri M