The court held that continuous uninterrupted service is a key factor in determining seniority, and that appointments made as stop-gap arrangements cannot be considered for seniority purposes.

1. Heard Mr. D.N. Bhattacharjee and Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for both the petitioners in these 2 (two) writ petitions and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State.

Case of the petitioners

2. Both these matters are taken together for the purpose of disposal as it relates to the same issue. The gist of the case is that both the petitioners, namely, Pema Norbu Khrime and Tarak Gongo initially joined in the service as on 23.09.1992 and 24.09.1992 respectively as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. By an order dated 19.03.1996, both the petitioners were allowed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) and by subsequent order passed by the Department and on the strength of the order so passed by this Court, they continued in the said post up-to 14.02.2013. The Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on recommendation of the DPC vide order dated 14.02.2013 issued by the respondent authority and promoted 39 (thirty nine) nos. of Junior Engineers (Civil) including the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. the date of recommendation of the DPC dated 21.01.2013 which is according to the petitioners is made without considering their continuous uninterrupted officiating service. They raised their grievances before the authority to consider their long officiating period for counting their seniority but as it was not responded so they have preferred writ petitions before this Court vide WP (C) 339 and 340 (AP) 2014 praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to count their long officiating period from 19.03.1996 to 14.02.2013 for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil). This Court by a common order dated 16.05.2016 referred the matter to the respondent authorities to appreciate all the aspect by taking into account the long continuous service of the petitioners for the purpose of counting their seniority but the respondent authorities has rejected the prayer of the petitioner by its impugned order dated 29.04.2016.

3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present 2 (two) writ petitions has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2/ the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Public Works Department, Itanagar to count the period rendered by the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on officiating basis since 19.03.1996 to 14.02.2013 for reckoning their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

Contentions of the writ petitioners.

4. The petitioners were initially allowed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 19.03.1996 for a period of 6 months and, thereafter, they continued uninterruptedly in the same capacity till their regular promotion on 14.02.2013 on recommendation of the DPC. They rendered services as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on officiating basis for more than 16 years continuously, starting from date of his initial officiating promotion upto the date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis. As such, the petitioner has acquired a legal right to claim their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. the date of initial appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on officiating basis. Correspondingly, the respondent authorities are also duty bound to consider the long tenure of officiating period rendered by them for the purpose of counting their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil). It is stated in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 29.04.2016, the respondent authority admitted that the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Engineer was on ad-hoc basis and it was not done in accordance of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Moreover, in parag