Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The issue raised in this batch of writ petitions pertains to inter se seniority of contesting petitioners and the private respondents on the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. Thus, all the petitions are considered and decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience the documents filed by the parties in WPS No. 1522 of 2017 shall be referred.

2. In the year 2003 all the petitioners and the private respondents were working as Assistant Engineer in the State of Chhattisgarh. The umbilical origin of the dispute commences on account of holding of Departmental Promotion Committee (hence forth ‘the DPC’) on 04.04.2003 wherein ad hoc promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer was considered for filling up 38 vacancies consisting of 13 clear vacancies; 6 vacancies falling vacant on account of promotion to next higher post (Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer); anticipated vacancies on account of retirement of 2 Executive Engineers; and 17 vacancies on deputation post.

3. The select list was prepared including D.K. Agrawal, J.S. Lulu, Pankaj Mohan Kashyap, Mohan Lal Uraon & Gyaneshwar Kashyap. Recommendation pertaining to A.K. Mandan was kept in sealed cover whereas that of Parmanand Sai, Pandeshwar Sai & Gopal Ram Rawte were kept in circulation. Pursuant to the DPC ad hoc promotion order was issued on 22.04.2003 promoting D.K. Agrawal, J.S. Lulu, V.K. Bhatpahari, P.M. Kashyap, M.L. Uraon & Gyaneshwar Kashyap. Thereafter, 5 other Assistant Engineers, including A.K. Mandan, were promoted on ad hoc basis with retrospective effect, in accordance with the original seniority, on the post of Executive Engineer, on 07.05.2003 (Annexure – R/3 to WPS No. 4951 of 2017). In both the orders it was mentioned that the said ad hoc promotions shall be regularized in terms of the instructions dated 01.01.2002 issued by the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh (henceforth ‘the GAD’).

4. It would be apt to mention here that in the said DPC petitioner Parmanand Sai was not recommended for promotion. In both the ad hoc promotion orders it was also provided that those officers who are senior to the ad hoc promotees, whose case is kept for consideration by circulation on account of non availability of ACRs would be promoted in future and those against whom the departmental inquiry is pending, the recommendations of the DPC was kept in sealed envelope, to be opened after finalization of the departmental inquiry and if they have been found fit for promotion, they will be promoted. Since the name of the respondent No.4 A.K. Mandan was kept in sealed cover, he was later on promoted on 07.05.2003 along with 4 other Assistant Engineers with retrospective effect.

5. For regularization of the ad hoc promotion granted in the year 2003, two meetings of the DPC were convened by the PSC on the same date i.e. 20.12.2005. The DPC recommended to regularize the promotion of 8 candidates namely S.K. Mehta, Ashok Kumar Shukla, R.G Bhargav, V.K. Jain, D.K. Pradhan, R.B. Gangrulkar, Santosh Kumar Kori and Vijay Kumar Bhatpahari. Order for regularization of their ad hoc promotion was issued by the State Government on 17.10.2006 (Annexure R-4). In another DPC held on the same day recommendations were made for regularization of promotion of J.M. Lulu (Respondent No.3); A.K. Mandan (Respondent No.4); P.M. Kashyap (Respondent No.5); M.L. Uraon (Respondent No.6); and Gopal Ram Rawte (petitioner No.4 in WPS No. 3665 of 2015). Consequential order of regularization of ad hoc promotion in respect of these Officers was issued on 17.10.2006 (Annexure R-6). In both the orders they were accorded seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotion. In the DPC dated 20.12.2005 also petitioner Parmanand Sai was included in the zone of consideration, but on account of non availability of his ACRs, his case was kept under circulation.

6. In the year 2007 the State Gover