The main legal point established in the judgment is that the services rendered on ad hoc basis should be treated as regular service for the purpose of seniority, except for those who encroached upon the quota meant for direct recruits.

Aftab H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.K. Misra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Roy, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. A. Nilamani, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimal, learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondents/writ Petitioners, hereinafter called as the private Respondents. Also heard the learned Govt. counsel, Manipur, representing the official Respondents.

2. These four writ appeals have been directed against the common judgment and order dated 11.05.01 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions involving common questions of law pertaining to regularization of ad hoc promotion of the private Respondents being promoted during the period between 30.10.76 and 26.07.83, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Asstt. Engineer) and their inter se seniority with those of direct recruits Asstt. Engineers i.e., the Appellants.

3. The Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment quashed the final interse seniority list dated 31.01.2000 and directed the State Respondents to constitute a Monitoring Committee headed by the Chief Secretary with the Secretary/Commissioner of Public Works Department and the Chief Engineer No. 1 P.W.D. as Members of the Committee for the purpose of preparing and publishing a fresh inter-se seniority list of the Asstt. Engineers showing the correct positions of the promotees as well as direct recruits of the Asstt. Engineers. In arriving at the above conclusion, the learned Judge held that the period of service rendered by the private Respondents from respective date of their appointment on ad hoc basis till regularisation, were to be treated as regular service for the purpose of seniority barring those who encroached upon the quota meant for direct recruits.

4. Since common questions of law, as noted hereinabove, have been raised in all these four writ appeals, all of them are being taken together for analogous hearing and dispose of by this common judgment and order.

5. For proper adjudication of the issues involved in these writ appeals, it would be appropriate to notice the facts of the case in a short compass.

6. The 11 private Respondents in all these writ appeals, while serving as Sectional Officer Gr. I, were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Asstt. Engineers on different dates in between 30.10.76 to 26.07.83. The services of all of them were regularized by the Govt. on 20.09.85. The Appellants, on the other hand, were directly appointed on regular basis to the post of Asstt. Engineers during the period of 27.11.80 and 26.09.86. When the private Respondents were regularized vide order dated 20.09.85, the said order did not mention about inclusion of their past services rendered on ad hoc basis for which some of the ad hoc promotees preferred writ petitions before this Court through C.R. Nos. 160/90 and 339/91 and this Court directed the State authorities to give effect of the appointment on regular basis with effect from the date of initial promotion on ad hoc basis. In compliance of the Court's order, the State Respondents treated the past services rendered by the private Respondents on ad hoc basis as regular service to the post of Asstt. Engineers keeping the question of seniority to be decided later on. A final seniority list was published on 16.03.95 and since the private Respondents' seniority position was not correctly reflected in the said final seniority list and being aggrieved by the said list, they moved this Court through W.P. (C) No. 156/2000 and this Court by its judgment and order dated 23.03.98 directed the State Respondents to constitute a Special Review Committee who should complete the process of re-examining the final seniority list of the Asstt. Engineers within a period of three months. In view of the said direction of this Court, the authority constituted Scrutiny Committee for re-examination of the matter and as per report of the said Committee, the State Respondents eventually published a final seniority list on 31.0