Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos. 1536/2009 and WP(C) No. 5037/2010. Both the writ petitions were heard together as the subject matter is identical.

2. In WP(C) No. 1536/2009 Sri Bijoy Sarma and Sri Dilip Kr. Nath are the petitioners whereas Sri Intaz Ali Ahmed and Sri Aniruddha Nag are the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5037/2010.

3. Matter relates to seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department (PWD). Petitioners are basically aggrieved by the second Cabinet decision whereby their seniority in service in the rank of Assistant Engineer (Civil) has been reckoned from the date of their regularization i.e., with effect from 24.12.1998.

4. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated.

5. According to the petitioners, following a selection process, they were appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 in February, 1994. About 62 persons were so appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD under Regulations 3(f). Though the petitioners were initially appointed for a period of 4 months, the temporary appointments of the petitioners were extended from time to time.

6. Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) issued an advertisement in the year 1995 for recruitment to 42 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD. Petitioners alongwith the other 3(f) appointees appeared in the selection process. In the selection process 42 candidates were selected and recommended by the APSC which included 14 who were earlier appointed under Regulation 3(f). However, the names of the petitioners were not included in the list of successful candidates of the APSC.

7. Petitioners claim that despite their non-selection by APSC, because of the valuable experience gathered by them, their services were not terminated and they were allowed to continue their service. As a matter of fact, names of the petitioners were recommended by the APSC for future vacancies.

8. As proposed in the form of Cabinet memorandum, the Cabinet in its meeting dated 24.12.1998 regularized the services of persons including the petitioners who were working in the PWD under Regulation 3(f) with effect from the dates of their initial appointment. Govt. of Assam in the PWD thereafter, issued notifications dated 06.01.1999 regularizing the appointment of the petitioners and few others who were appointed under Regulation 3(f) with effect from the dates of their joining in PWD i.e., from February, 1994. It was stated that the regularization was made in relaxation of Rule 6 of the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 1978 and also invoking Rule 28 of the said Rules as a very special case.

9. Later on, the petitioners came to know that gradation list of the incumbents in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD was published vide notification dated 14.10.2004. As per the said notification, seniority position of the petitioners was reckoned from the date of regularization i.e., with effect from 24.12.1998 and not from the date of initial joining under Regulation 3(f) i.e., February 1994.

10. This led to filing of WP(C) No. 4618/2006 before this Court by the petitioners and others. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Service Tribunal since it was held that the subject matter of the writ petition was within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.

11. A gradation list in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was again published on 15.05.2007 wherein petitioners were placed way down in the list of seniority by reckoning their seniority with effect from the date of regularization and not from the date of initial appointment. Representations submitted by the petitioners for counting their seniority with effect from the date of initial appointment and consequential re-arrangement of their seniority position was rejected by Departmen