Point of Law: Law cannot come to the rescue of the official respondents in having extended a benefit in favour of certain employees in disregard of rules and the law on the subject. The Court cannot be a signatory to the wrong done by the official respondents.

JUDGMENT :

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J.

1. This intra Court Appeal, for short appeal is directed against the judgment/final order passed in writ petition, SWP No. 1613/2013, on 01.11.2019, for short impugned judgment, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 4 has been allowed and the order No. Home-102(P) of 2012 dated 09.02.2012 has been quashed to the extent respondents 4 and 5, appellants herein, had been placed over and above the petitioner/respondent no. 4 herein, and the official respondents had been directed to re-frame the seniority of the petitioner/respondent no. 4 and respondents nos. 4 and 5/appellants along with other appointees figuring in Order No. 2250 of 1995 dated 12.08.1995, by placing them at an appropriate place permissible under rules and in consequence thereof necessary benefits including promotion, that accrue due, be granted to the petitioner/respondent no. 4 and respondents 4 and 5/appellants, respectively.

2. The events that led to the filing of this appeal are taken note of, in the first instance.

3. The appellants and the respondent no. 4 are stated to have been appointed as Prosecuting Officers vide Order No. 2250 of 1995 dated 12.08.1995. The appellants figure in the appointment list at serial no. 4 and 10 respectively, while as the respondent no. 4 figures therein at serial no. 02.

4. The tentative seniority list of Prosecuting Officers as it stood on 01.07.1999 came to be issued vide Notification No. Estt/Pros-3/99/25907-26063 dated 20.07.1999 and the objections were sought from the aggrieved.

5. The objections filed to the tentative seniority list were considered and final seniority list was notified in terms of Order No. Estt/Pros-3/99/25907-26063 dated 20.07.1999 as it stood on 01.06.1999. It is apt to record herein that the objections filed to the tentative seniority list did not relate to the placement of respondent no. 4. In the final seniority list of the Prosecuting Officers as it stood on 01.06.1999 the appellants figured at serial no. 21 and 26 respectively, while as the respondent no. 4 figured therein at serial no. 12.

6. Subsequent thereto, the appellants as also the respondent no. 4 were promoted as Senior Prosecuting Officers in terms of Government Order No. Home-24(P) of 2001 dated 28.05.2001.

7. Thereafter, the services of the appellants along with respondent no. 4 were confirmed as Chief Prosecuting Officers in terms of Government Order No. 393(P) of 2011 dated 13.04.2011 by regularizing their ad-hoc arrangement w.e.f. 14.07.2006 insofar as appellant no. 1 is concerned; 01.04.2008 in respect of appellant no. 2 and 01.08.2008 in respect of respondent no. 4.

8. Thereafter, vide Government Order No. Home-102(P) of 2012 dated 09.02.202, final seniority list of Chief Prosecuting Officers was issued wherein the appellants figure at serial no. 15 and 22 respectively whereas, the respondent no. 4 figures at serial no. 25. The seniority was objected to by the respondent no. 4 by addressing a representation to the concerned, which did not yield any result, constraining the respondent no. 4 to file a writ petition before the Writ Court bearing SWP No. 1613/2013.

9. The plea raised by the respondent no. 4 before the Writ Court was that he has all along been senior to the appellants right from the date of appointment and the course is changed probably for the reason that the appellants have been considered against the roster point available to the officials belonging to the RBA category. The respondent no. 4 is shown to be figuring at serial no. 37 whereas appellants figured at serial no. 45 and 50 respectively in the final seniority list of Senior Prosecuting Officers.

10. The respondent no. 4 had pleaded before the Writ Court that the appellants have been placed ahead of respondent no. 4 in disregard of the fact that the appellants have obtained the status of being the Residents of Backward Area after their appointment as Prosecuting Officers or even after having been promoted as Senior Pr