- (1.) The question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether the seniority of the respondent - direct recruit employees is to be determined with reference to the date of their appointment or from the date of their confirmation after their probation period was over, as against the appellants who were admittedly regularised in service after the initial appointment of the respondents but before their confirmation. For the sake of convenience the facts may be taken from C.A. Nos. 989-90 of 1980.
(2.) The appellant was initially appointed in 1961 admittedly not according to rules, although the Recruitment Rules were in existence since 1960. For the first time, pursuant to the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 17th October, 1967, the appellant along with other similarly situated employees, was directed to be absorbed against the vacancies then existing and arising thereafter. The absorption was to be made in phases over a period of 1-1/ 2 years. There is no dispute that accordingly the appellant was so absorbed on 26th May, 1968. The respondent direct recruits were appointed according to the rules w.e.f. 7th November, 1967 with the usual condition of their putting in satisfactory probation period of service of two years, They completed their probation period of service in November, 1969 and by the order dated 29th July, 1970, their services were "regularised" from various dates in November, 1969.
(3.) On this factual matrix, the controversy raised in the writ petitions before learned single Judge of the High Court was that since the appellant was regularised w.e.f. 26th May, 1968 as against the respondent-direct recruits who were also 'regularised' but since November 1969, the appellant ought to have been shown senior to the respondents and. the lower seniority given to him in the seniority list was against law. The learned single Judge accepted the said contention and allowed the writ petition. However, in appeal, the Division Bench reversed the said decision and held that the seniority of the respondent-direct recruits would have to be counted from the date of their initial appointment notwithstanding the fact that they were 'regularised' in 1969 after completion of the probation period. It is this decision which is challenged in the present appeals, the decision being common to both the appeals.;