- (1.)BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 8. 10. 2008, Annexure P1, whereby respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been re-appointed on the posts of Engineer-in-Chief. The petitioner has also prayed that the State Government be directed to promote him to the post of Engineer-in-Chief.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this petition are these. The petitioner is presently working on the post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State Government. Respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were also posted in the same department as Engineer-in-Chief, were to retire from service on 30. 9. 2008 on attaining their statutory age of superannuation. A meeting of the Screening Committee was, therefore, fixed for 27. 9. 2008 to consider the promotion of Chief Engineers to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. But one Chief Engineer Dhanesh Chandra Saxena, by disputing his seniority, succeeded in getting an order dated 26. 9. 2008, Annexure P4, from this Court in Writ Petition No. 11959/2008 (S ). By the said order the State Government was restrained from initiating the process of making promotion to the posts of Engineer-in-Chief till the decision of the representation of Dhanesh Chandra Saxena regarding his proper placement in the seniority list. Having regard to the order, the State Government stopped the process of promotion. The State Government also issued the order of superannuation of respondent nos. 3 and 4 on 30. 9. 2008 and later by the impugned order dated 8. 10. 2008 reappointed them as Engineer-in-Chief for a period of six months from 1. 10. 2008 up to 31. 3. 2009. As directed, the State Government considered the representation of Dhanesh Chandra Saxena and rejected the same on 10. 11. 2008.
(3.)IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent nos. 3 and 4 have obtained their reappointment on the posts of Engineer-in-Chief by political influence without the recommendation of Screening Committee and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. It has also been submitted that if respondent nos. 3 and 4 would not have been reappointed, the petitioner had every chance of being promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, denied that the reappointment was made under political influence and submitted that they had to be reappointed in public interest because of the situation created by the High Court's order dated 26. 9. 2008.