The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of respecting seniority in government service and the application of established principles of seniority in the appointment of officiating Executive Engineers.

Delivered By Hon'ble Sri B. Lal, Chairman:

1. Present claim petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.10.2007 to the extent it relates to the petitioners. Petitioners also prayed to consider their case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against available vacancies or in alternative to consider their cases for officiation on the post of Executive Engineers as given to other persons who are junior to them. The order has also been challenged being violative to Government of Uttarakhand direction contained in office order dated 23.6.2003.

2. Heard Sri M.C.Pant learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, Learned Assistant Presenting Officer and Sri J.P.Kansal learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on substantive posts and thereafter approved by Public Service Commission in accordance with the Subordinate Engineering Service Rules 1951. The detail of their appointments and seniority have been given as follows :

SI. No Names Initial date Seniority Seniority Date of

of No. as stood No. in final promotion as

appointment in Gen. seniority list Assistant

as J.E. Cadre and of Hill Sub Engineer.

issued by the Cadre dt.

PSC 19.2.1994.

1. Vinod Kumar Virdi 15.11.1973 2071 98 01 07.1999

2. Pramod Kumar Jain 04.07.1973 2063 96 01.07.1999

3. Anil Kumar 22.02.1972 1749 85 01.07.1999

Aggarwal

4. Pawan Kumar Jain 31.01.1972 1871 91 01.07.1999

5. U.S. Sangar 28.10.1972 1728 83 01.07.1999

4. It is stated that name of the private Respondent Nos.24 and 46, in the impugned order have not figured in the seniority list dated 19.2.1994. The name of Sh. Chandra Mohan Pandey, Respondent No. 4 figured at SI.No. 25 who was appointed on 6.10.1983 on ad-hoc basis and was alleged to have been regularised on 14.2.1990 and his name figured at SI. No. 209 in the final seniority list. Similarly in Para 4 (c), the date of appointment of other respondents have also been disclosed. It is alleged that persons junior to petitioners, as per seniority list, have been assigned the charge of Full Time Officiating Executive Engineer and the petitioners though senior, have not been given the same opportunity, which is violation of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 145/05 (S/B) has dealt with the similar issue and observed that even in cases of officiation on higher posts, seniority cannot be ignored and placing the juniors above the petitioners as Incharge with power of supervision and control over them is nothing but humiliation and denial of self respect. Therefore, it is further stated that inspite of availability of vacancies and the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in earlier cases, the State has not made promotions on the vacant posts and appointed the juniors as Full Time Incharge in the divisions with all financial and administrative powers. Though the State has not filed their written statement inspite of sufficient time afforded to them, however private Respondent No. 5 has filed its written statement, wherein it is asserted that petitioners are not senior, as Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1998 against Graduate Engineer Quota and therefore he is senior to the petitioners in the. grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil) whereas petitioners were promoted only in 1999 as Assistant Engineers. It is further stated that the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) has not yet been finalized and therefore it cannot be said that petitioners are senior to him. It is submitted that for overall development of the State, respondents had to complete the infrastructure, project and work on priority which in the absence of requisite manpower was not possible and therefore in emergent situation, Respondent No. 1 made