Seniority should be counted from the date of initial appointment, and the regularisation of services should be considered in accordance with department rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Matter comes up on an application (IA No.2/2023) filed by the applicant for early listing and final disposal of the writ petition. However, with the consent of counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally today.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

“i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble court be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and it may be declared that that placement of the name of the petitioner at S.No.90 of the tentative seniority list (Annexure-6) and S.No. 87 of the Final Seniority list (Annexure-12) in comparison to the seniority assigned to the similarly situated employees at S.No. 55 onwards in the tentative seniority list at S.No.55 onwards in the final seniority list is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the name of the petitioner in both the tentative and final seniority lists so published by the respondent No. 1 may kindly be allowed to be placed at S.No. 55 and S.No. 55 respectively.

ii) that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1 be directed to place the name of the petitioner in the seniority list from the date of his initial appointment on the post of junior Engineer-I (E&M) i.e. 27.03.91 and not from the date of screening/ selection in the year 1992 as the erstwhile RSEB did not conduct any selection process in the year 90 or in the year 1991 in respect of the petitioner even when some appointments were made in the year 1991 without even informing or calling the petitioner to face the selection process and later on has inadvertently given seniority to such ad hoc appointees of 1991 over and above the petitioner for no fault on the part of the petitioner.

iii) that by an appropriate order or direction, this Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the seniority/length of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.3.91 (12.04.91 Date of Joining) while effecting promotions on the post of Assistant Engineers or alternatively not to effect any promotion on the post of AEN till final disposal of this writ petition or one post of Assistant Engineer be kindly directed to be kept vacant till seniority matter is not finally decided by this Hon’ble Court for placing the name of the petitioner at the correct place in the respective seniority list of JENs.

iv) Any other order or directions as may be deemed proper and considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be quantified in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer-I vide order dated 27.03.1991 passed by Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur in the regular pay scale with a condition that he has to appear before the selection committee. Thereafter, on the recommendation made by the selection committee and as approved by the appointing authority, the services of the petitioner were further extended on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale on probation for a further period of two years.

4. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are not counting the services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment on the post of Junior Engineer-I i.e. from 27.03.1991.

5. The condition mentioned in the order dated 27.03.1991 reads as under:-

“The above candidates appointed on adhoc basis will have to appear before the selection committee and their continuance will depend upon their being found suitable by the selection committee. The seniority inter se of the above candidates will be decided as per the merit assigned by the selection committee.”

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the order dated 27.03.1991 clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents subject to approval by the selection