Reserved on 09.09.2025 Delivered on 18.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Service Bench No. 367 of 2014

9^th September, 2025

Rajbir Singh and Others ………..Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ..……….Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil

Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Vinay Kumar learned counsel for respondent no.2/UJVNL.

Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per.)

The present writ petition is preferred by the

petitioners challenging the order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand, whereby the claim petition filed by them seeking correction in the seniority list dated 06.02.2010 of Junior Engineers in Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (UJVNL) was dismissed. The petitioners have sought a declaration that the said seniority list is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio, and that their seniority ought to be placed above the private respondents, who were

appointed later.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, two sister corporations, namely Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) and Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (UJVNL), were established to oversee electricity generation and distribution. Both corporations followed common recruitment procedures at certain points. In November 2001, UPCL advertised posts for Assistant Engineers and

Junior Engineers in Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical disciplines. UJVNL requested UPCL to recruit 20 Junior Engineers (Mechanical), 20 Junior Engineers (Electrical), and 15 Junior Engineers (Civil) for UJVNL’s requirements. The selection process was conducted by UPCL for Civil and Electrical branches via written test and interview, and the final list of selected candidates was furnished to UJVNL. Since UPCL did not have immediate requirements for Mechanical Junior Engineers, it forwarded candidates who qualified in the written test to UJVNL for conducting interviews and final selection. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers on 28.12.2002, whereas the private respondents were appointed subsequently on 12.03.2003 as Junior Engineers (Apprentice). The petitioners contend that their appointment being prior in time ought to determine their seniority over the private respondents, irrespective of the marks obtained in the selection process.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the service conditions and determination of seniority for Junior Engineers in UJVNL are governed by the U.P. State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 (“Service Regulations, 1972”) and U.P. State Electricity Board Employees Seniority Regulations, 1998 (“Seniority Regulations, 1998”), which have been adopted by UJVNL and are still applicable. He would further submit that Regulation 5 of the Service Regulations, 1972, provides that appointments to the post of Junior Engineers are made through direct recruitment as well as by promotion.

4. Learned senior counsel would further submit that Regulation 5(b)(i) specifies that appointment by direct recruitment is made from candidates like Apprentice Supervisors selected in accordance with part 4 of the Regulations; that, since the appointment is made from multiple sources, the inter-se seniority is governed by Regulation 8 of the Seniority Regulations, 1998. The petitioners argue that both they and the private respondents were not appointed from one selection and that, being appointed earlier, they are entitled to seniority over the private respondents. In support of his case, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench