The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of rules governing the appointment and promotion of Sanitary Inspectors, the distinction between qualified and unqualified Sanitary Inspectors, and the application of CCA Rule 24.

JUDGEMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The lack of rules providing for the qualification for the post of Sanitary Inspectors in the Directorate of Urban Local Bodies at the relevant point of time has given rise to this litigation. In all these four intra-court appeals, the common judgment dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned writ court, disposing of two writ petitions each filed separately, by each of the respondent No. 3, has been impugned. The dispute now remains only between the appellant and respondent No. 3 in LPA No. 90/2018 & LPA No. 91/2018 respectively because the appellants in LPA No. 56/2018 and 57/2018 have attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of appeal, therefore both LPAs bearing nos. 90/2018 & LPA No. 91/2018 are being disposed of by this common judgment.

LPA No. 90/2018:

2. The respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1596/2006 challenging the order dated 12.05.2006, whereby his juniors were promoted and also prayed for issuance of the directions for placing him in the grade of Rs. 1760-3200 (Revised to Rs. 5700-10,100) from the date of his appointment i.e. 17.04.1985. During the pendency of the writ petition, the final seniority list of Sanitary Inspectors of Urban Local Bodies was issued on 16.09.2011 and the respondent No.3 filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 2060/2013 challenging the said final seniority list and prayed for the issuance of fresh seniority list including his name after fixing his seniority above the private respondents therein (20 in Nos.) w.e.f. the date the private respondent joined the service as Sanitary Inspector i.e. w.e.f. 17.04.1985.

3. The learned writ court vide its judgment dated 03.05.2018 while disposing of the two writ petitions mentioned above, quashed the seniority list dated 16.09.2011 and directed the official respondents to reframe the seniority list by reflecting the respondent No. 3 at an appropriate place keeping in view his date of appointment and further the respondent No. 3 was ordered to be placed in an upgraded pay scale of Rs. 1700-3200 revised to Rs. 5700-10,100/- w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted.

4. The official respondents did not choose to assail the judgment of the writ court and only the appellant along with appellants in LPA No. 56/2018 and 57/2018 assailed the same.

5. In LPA No. 90/2018, the appellant has pleaded that even in the absence of rules, the posts of Sanitary Inspector in the department were being filled up with the persons holding one year diploma in Sanitary Inspector training course and the respondent No. 3 was not holding any such technical qualification when he joined the department on 17.04.1985 but acquired the same on 12.01.1995, whereas the appellant joined the department on 18.02.1986 after having passed the Sanitary Inspector training course in the year 1985. It is also stated that while examining the tentative seniority list, certain discrepancies were found which created serious problem in compiling the inter-se seniority of Sanitary Inspectors, therefore, the respondent No. 2 mooted a proposal vide its communication dated 02.11.2004 recommending that Government Order No. 51-HUD of 2004 dated 26.02.2004 be made applicable to all qualified Sanitary Inspectors working in the Directorate with effect from the date of their appointment and in respect of others, from the date of qualifying Sanitary Inspector training course and the proposal so mooted was accepted by the Administrative Department vide its communication dated 10.01.2005. On the strength of these two communications, the respondent No. 3 was placed in the grade of Rs. 5700-10,100 w.e.f. 01.04.1995 whereas the appellant was given this grade w.e.f. 20.02.1986. It was only after the above development, the respondent No. 2 circulated tentative seniority list dated 26.10.2010, wherein respondent No. 3 was shown at serial No. 2 and so far as the appellant is concerned, he was shown at serial No. 3 and one Mohd. Ahsan figured at serial no. 1.

6.