- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) THE Appellants through this appeal have challenged the judgment and order dated 22.10.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 476 (M/S) of 2001 by the learned Single Judge. The facts giving rise to this appeal is that the Appellants preferred a writ petition for quashing the seniority list dated 27.5.2000, contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. It was also prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties be issued to rectify the claim of the Appellants and fix their seniority in accordance with the date of initial appointment of the Appellants and also place them from serial No. 131 onwards in place of serial No. 372 in the final seniority list.
(3.) THE Appellants pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Respondents applied for the post of Personal Assistant in the Civil Secretariat in the year 1991. Several candidates, who were working in various departments, applied in response to the said advertisement. The selection proceeded and after following due procedure, as provided under law, the Appellants were declared successful and as a consequence thereof they were issued appointment letters on the post of Personal Assistant vide appointment letter dated 4.9.1992 on substantive posts though temporarily. The Appellants joined in pursuance to the appointment orders. The appointments of the Appellants were extended from time to time and the stipulation contained therein that as and when regularly selected candidates come and join, their services shall come to an end was specified. Their appointment was subsequently converted into ad hoc appointment. The appointment by virtue of Regularization Rules, came to be regularized in the year 1997. The Respondents issued a seniority list on 27.5.2000. The Appellants came to know that they were placed below their juniors at serial No. 372 onwards in place of serial No. 131. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid grudge, they filed Writ Petition No. 476 (S/S) of 2001 praying for fixing their seniority from the date of their initial appointment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the representation preferred by the Appellants dated 18.10.2000 was rejected vide order dated 17.5.2001, which was impugned in the writ petition as Annexure No. 14 by making amendment. After pleadings were exchanged, the writ petition was finally heard and decided vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2009.;