JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order passed by the Public Services Tribunal dated 10.10.2017 passed in Claim Petition No. 18/NB/DB/2015, Sunil Kumar v. Chief Engineer and others, as well as the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in a review petition No. 01/NB/DB/2017 decided on 23.11.2017.

ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to determine the seniority of the Junior Engineers strictly as per Rule 23 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Services Rules, 1978."

2. On 29.11.2004, an Advertisement was issued for the purpose of filling-up the vacancies of Junior Engineer. Petitioner was favoured with an appointment order dated 13.05.2005. In all, five appointment orders were issued on different dates pursuant to the Advertisement issued in 2004 and the selection was made in 2005. The party respondents, in this case, are all persons, who have been favoured with appointment orders, which are issued subsequent to the appointment order of the petitioner. About this, there is no dispute. It would appear that a tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers was issued on 06.08.2010. Therein, petitioner was shown above the persons, who were appointed after him. Still later, another tentative seniority list was published on 14.09.2010. Therein, petitioner was placed at Serial No. 226. It appears that the said list was based on the merit list prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by adding the marks obtained in the written test and the interview. The petitioner filed objections on 17.01.2014. The said representation came to be rejected by proceedings dated 03.11.2014. Petitioner again filed another representation on 21.11.2014. Thereafter, a final seniority list was published on 28.11.2014.

3. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 301 of 2014. The apprehension of the petitioner was that promotions will be carried out on the basis of erroneous provisional list against which objections had been filed by him. Noting the stand of the respondent that, only after the objections are looked into, the promotions would be carried out, the writ petition came to be disposed of on 04.09.2014.

4. Petitioner filed a claim petition, being Claim Petition No. 18/NB/DB/2015, before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal"). The Tribunal proceeded to consider the matter and rejected the claim petition vide judgment dated 10.10.2017. Thereupon, petitioner filed a review petition, being Review Petition No. 01/NB/DB/2017. The same was also rejected vide order dated 23.11.2017. Hence, the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as we have already noticed.

5. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation; Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the private respondents; Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some other private respondents; and Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 84.

Findings by the Tribunal:

6. The Tribunal has proceeded to discountenance the case of the petitioner on the following reasoning, inter alia:

Though reliance was placed by the petitioner on Regulation 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “1978 Regulations"), the Tribunal found that it has suffered an amendment by the inclusion of “ka". The said provision, which was produced by the respondents, in short, proceeds to make seniority dependent upon the position of a person in the merit list. The Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that the matter is to be decided on the basis of Regulation 23-Ka of the 1978 Regulations and which is admitted