JUDGEMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-07-2024 The writ petitioners are in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining their prayer for seniority.

2. On facts, it is to be noticed that the appellants had applied under an advertisement issued in the year 2006 for appointment on contractual basis against sanctioned posts in the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, now taken over by the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Patna (referred to for brevity as ‘the Board’ also for convenience).

3. The appellants were appointed as Assistant Electrical Engineer (General), based on the marks acquired in the qualifying examination, as contractual employees by an order dated 10.04.2007. After the said engagement of the appellants, the Board had made several regular recruitments against the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General).

Pausing here, it is to be noticed that the regulations of the Board provided for appointment, both as contractual employees and regular employees, for which there were different sanctioned posts with different procedure for recruitment. The appellants are also persons who appeared under the regular selection, but failed to qualify. When the appellants continued as contractual employees, by decision dated 03.03.2015, the Board of Directors of the Company decided to take the appellants into the regular establishment and an Office order was issued on

31.03.2015; specifically providing that the seniority of the contractual employees on regularisation in regular pay scales would be fixed below the regular appointees, who were appointed before the date of regularisation. The inter se seniority of the contractual employees would depend upon their year of engagement. The appellants, who were the writ petitioners, claimed that they are entitled to recognition of their services in the contractual establishment and be placed above the regularly recruited employees.

4. The learned Single Judge looked at every contention raised by the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge noticed the contention raised based on Regulations 82 and 84 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1976 (for brevity ‘Regulation’) and the argument that since there is ‘continuous officiation’ provided in contractual employment, the order of regularisation is opposed to public policy. The reliance placed on Bihar State Electricity Employees Association & Ors. v. Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited & Ors., an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 13542 of 2019 was distinguished but it stands reversed in LPA 1554 of 2019.

Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2909 and The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1607 , was noticed. The learned Single Judge found that contractual employment and regular employment, in the Board, were two distinct streams of recruitment. The writ petitioners had no claim for regularisation and the decision for such regularisation, could only be on the seniority as decided at the time of regularisation; which the contractual employees accepted without demur and challenged it after three years. It was also found that the writ petitioners were given a fair opportunity to become members of the regular establishment, by participating in the selection, which they either failed to avail or failed to qualify on participation. The decisions relied on were distinguished. The two distinct streams of appointment as regular employees and contractual employees were emphsised to reject the writ petition.

5. Before us, learned Counsel Shri Abhinav Shrivastava argued that the appellants and the regular employees were discharging the same duties. The con