ORDER :

The petitioners in W.P.No.25266/2016 are direct recruits for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil). The recruitment notification was issued on 22.02.2008 and final select list for Assistant Engineers (Computer Science) was published vide notification dated 08.04.2010. The final select list of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) was published vide notification dated 05.05.2010. The final select list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) was published vide notification dated 12.05.2010, while the final select list of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) was published vide notification dated 21.06.2016. Thereafter, a consolidated list adding 30% from the marginal list in all the three categories -Assistant Engineers (Civil, Electrical and Computer Science) was published on 31.01.2011, vide three separate notifications.

2. However, since some of the selected candidates did not report for duty despite issuance of appointment orders, the selection of such candidates was cancelled by a notification dated 01.08.2011 and thereafter the respondent Board published an additional final select list in all the three categories on 16.09.2011 and 22.09.2011 enlisting candidates finally selected from the marginal list. Appointment orders were issued and the contesting parties have been working from then on. Thereafter, a provisional seniority list of graduate Assistant Engineers and non-graduate Assistant Engineers from 01.04.2012 was published vide notification dated 13.11.2013. Since the petitioners in W.P.No.25266/2016 had no grievance with respect to their ranking assigned in the provisional list dated 13.11.2013, they did not file any objections. The final seniority list of Assistant Engineers (graduate) was published on 26.12.2013.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.No.25266/2016 is that in the final seniority list, the respondents No.4 to 11 were placed above the petitioners, contrary to the provisional seniority list. The petitioners gave a representation dated 06.01.2014 for correcting the final seniority list and restore their rankings as per the provisional seniority list. It is contended that the respondent Board while publishing seniority list of Junior Engineers vide notification dated 05.03.2015 had rightly placed the candidates selected from the marginal list below the candidates selected in the provisional select list, but in the case of Assistant Engineers, the respondent Board has committed a mistake in placing respondents who were selected from the marginal list, above the petitioners. On the other hand, the Board issued endorsements at Annexure-N series stating that the respondents had sought for extension of time to join duty and therefore in terms of Clause 16(d) of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Cadre, Recruitments and Promotion Regulation, 1981, (for short ‘Regulation’), the benefit of extension of time to join duty was given to the respondents, however, since it was found that their ranking was not in accordance with the percentage of marks obtained, the respondents have been placed in the seniority list, as per their marks obtained.

4. Two issues arise for consideration-

(i) Whether the candidates shown in the marginal list could be permitted to claim ranking in the seniority list in terms of the percentage of marks obtained during recruitment process or whether they are required to be placed below the candidates in the final select list?

(ii) Whether clause 16(d) of the Regulation provides for extension of joining time and whether such candidates who assume charge after the period specified in the appointment order lose the seniority originally assigned?

5. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent Board it is stated that this Court, in the case of Smt. V.Shilpa and others Vs. The Chairman, BWSSB & others in W.P.Nos.19518-19533/2014, by order dated 04.09.2014 considered the final gradation list of Assistant Engineers (graduates) notified on 26.12.2013. It is stated that in view of certain di