Promotion and seniority can only be awarded retrospectively when vacancies exist at the time of officiating promotions, and the Department must reevaluate claims based on factual evidence.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

(S. K. Medhi, J.)

The challenge in all these three writ appeals being identical, the same are taken up together for analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Suffice it to mention that Writ Appeal No. 28 (AP) of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 35 (AP) of 2024 arises out of a judgment dated 31.08.2024. It may further be mentioned that though two appeals have been preferred, they arise from the same batch of petitioners who had filed WP(C) 149 (AP) of 2023. In WA No.35 (AP) of 2024, 6 (six) of the petitioners have joined together, while the remaining petitioner has preferred WA No. 28 (AP) of 2024. Insofar as WA No.01 (AP) of 2025 is concerned, the same has been preferred against a judgment dated 19.12.2024 which, however, was delivered by following the earlier judgment dated 31.08.2024. The appellants are the writ petitioners.

2. Before going into the issues which have arisen for adjudication, the facts in brief, as projected in the writ petitions are given hereinbelow. For the sake of convenience, the facts are stated as per the writ appeals.

WA No.35 (AP) of 2024

3. In this appeal, there are 6 (six) appellants who were part of the writ petitioners in WP(C) 149 (AP) of 2023. It is contended that the appellants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) in the Department of Power during the period 1994-1997 and had become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on completion of the qualifying length of service. However, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings were not held, for which the petitioners were deprived of their regular promotion. Be that as it may, the petitioners were promoted on an officiating basis to the post of Assistant Engineer during the years 2008–2011 and were given regular promotion in the year 2022. However, the prayer for granting retrospective effect to their promotion was declined and, accordingly, the writ petition was filed which, however, was dismissed.

4. It is contended that as on 24.07.2012, 11 (eleven) nos. of Assistant Engineers in the Department who were senior to the appellants and had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on an officiating basis during the year 2007–2008, were recommended by the DPC for regularisation with retrospective effect from the date of their officiating promotion. For the purpose of regularisation, 8 (eight) posts of Assistant Engineer under the direct recruitment quota were converted to the promotion quota as a one-time relaxation vide order dated 17.03.2008. On 23.11.2011, an advertisement was issued for filling up 20 (twenty) nos. of posts of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment and, accordingly, to accommodate such direct recruits, the appellants were reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. Consequently, vide order dated 18.07.2013, 20 (twenty) nos. of Assistant Engineers, including respondent Nos. 5 to 24 were appointed as direct recruits pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.2011. The appellants were, however, reinstated to the post of Assistant Engineer on an officiating basis vide order dated 29.07.2013, which was made effective from the date of reversion, i.e., 17.07.2013. It is contended that, in that view of the matter, there was no break in their service as Assistant Engineers on an officiating basis.

5. The writ petitioners/appellants had been representing from time to time for regularisation, which, however, was not considered. In the meantime, three of the appellants, namely appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6 had instituted WP(C) 379 (AP) of 2013, wherein this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2015 directed holding of a DPC within four months and consideration of their cases along with other similarly situated persons. Subsequently, on 23.06.2022, the appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on a regular basis on the recommendation of the DPC, but with effect from 10.06.2022. The claim of the petitioners to grant retrospective effect to their promo