- (1.) HEARD Sri S. N. Babulkar, Sr. Advo cate, Sri V. B. S. Negi, Sri K. N. Joshi and Sri Arvind Vashista learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L. R Naithani, Sr. Ad vocate, assisted by Sri Sharad Sharma, Sri, N. S. Negi learned counsel for the interveners and Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned standing counsel for State of Uttaranchal.
(2.) IN the aforesaid three writ peti tions, the petitioners, who are Junior Engineers in the Irrigation Department, have disputed the seniority list dated 09-08-2001. Consequently, the writ peti tions are being decided by a common judgment. In writ petition no. 542 (SB) of 2002 there are eight petitioners. The petitioners have claimed that they were initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department on adhoc basis during 197/-78 and their services were regularized in between 1983-89. Petitioners were appointed against vacant posts and continued on the post till their regularization. The grievance of petitioners is that the re spondents are not counting their services from the date of their initial appointment for the purpose of their seniority and have fixed their seniority treating them to have been appointed from the date of their regularization. At the admission stage, it was submitted by the petition ers that Departmental Promotion Com mittee is going to be held for making pro motion to the post of Assistant Engineer and in case, the services of the petition ers from the date of their initial appoint ment is not counted by the department for the purpose of seniority they will be deprived of being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. This court on 18-05-2004 passed order to the following effect : "heard Sri V. B. S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the re spondents. Petitioners have claimed that initially the petitioners were appointed in the year197/-78 in the Irrigation De partment on adhoc basis and they were regularized in between 1983 -89. However, respondents are not taking services of the petitioners for the purpose of seniority from the date of their initial appointment and the department has fixed their seniority from the date of their regularization. The contention of the petitioners is that they were appointed against the substantive vacancy and continued till their regularization, as such, their services should have been considered for seniority from the date of their initial appointment. It has been fur ther submitted that DPC is going to be held from 20-05-2004 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Department. Considering the facts narrated above, it is provided that any promotion made in pursuance to the DPC al leged to be held from 20-05-2004 shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. Learned standing counsel shall file counter affidavit, if not filed so far, within two weeks. Thereafter, two weeks, time is granted for filing re joinder affidavit. List this petition in the third week of June, 2004. In the meantime, respondents may consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion. However, the result of the petitioners shall not be declared till further order of this court. "
(3.) INTERVENTION/impleadment appli cation along with counter affidavit and stay vacation application no. 2335 of 2004 has been filed by Sri Bhuvan Chandra Pant, Jr. Engineer, Irrigation Department, who was selected by Pub lic Service Commission and was placed in the seniority list above the petition ers. In the application the intervener has stated that in view of the order passed by this court on 18-05-2004 the re spondents have postponed the DPC to be held from 20-05-2004. This court on 2/-05-2004 has clarified the order dated 20-05-2004 as under : "in view of the aforesaid facts, the or der dated 18-05-2004 is clarified to the extent that the court has not post poned the selection through DPC. Petitioners may also be considered for promotion. However, the result of the petitioners shall not be declared till further order of this court. " In the aforesaid writ petition two sets of petitioners are there. Petitioners no. 3,4, 7 and 8 are those who were ap pointed in the year 1977 on adhoc ba sis and later on selected by Public Serv ice Commission on 30-03-1982 whereas the petitioners no. 1,2, 5 and 6 were ap pointed temporarily on adhoc basis by the department and have not ever faced Public Service Commission.;