- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. Since there is a common question of law and fact involved in all the petitions, therefore, all these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE main controversy is in between the Adhoc Junior Engineers (hereinafter referred as 'adhoc J. Es.), who were ap pointed by the State Government pursu ant to the advertisement in the year 1983 and were regularized from the date of their initial appointments under the U. P Regularization of Adhoc Appointments Rules, 1979 on 14-02-1990 and 27-07-1990 and the Directly Recruited Junior Engineers (here-in-after as 'direct Recruits'), who were appointed through the Public Serv ice Commission after the regularization of Adhoc J. Es. It is admitted case of the parties that in view of the shortage of Junior En gineers in Hill Districts of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 05-05-1982 took a decision to fill up the posts by Ad-hoc appointments and authorized the Head of the Department to proceed with the appointment process. The Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Lucknow invited applications for the posts of Junior Engineers on Ad-hoc basis for a maximum period of one year vide an advertisement issued and published in the newspapers. The private respondents in claim petition be fore the Tribunal (Adhoc J. Es.) having applied and gone through the selection process were selected on the posts on Ad hoc basis. The appointment of Ad-hoc J. Es. were made in the year 1983. In the meanwhile, the Public Service Commission invited applications for 1400 posts of Junior Engineers (1000 posts for plain area and 400 posts for hill area ). After going through the selection process, the Public Service Commission recommended the names of claim petitioners (direct recruits) before the Tribunal to the State Govern ment on 15-02-1990. In the meantime, the Ad-hoc J. Es were regularized under the U. P Regularization of Ad-hoc Appoint ment Rules, 1979 on 14-02-1990 and 27-07-1990. The Adhoc J. Es. were placed on probation from the date of their initial appointments and they were made perma nent and their seniority were also fixed above the direct recruits. The Direct Re cruits were appointed by the Government on 27-07-1990. Having considering the different representations, a combined sen iority list dated 19-02-1994 was issued by the Government in which the Adhoc J. Es. were shown as senior to the Direct Recruits. Feeling aggrieved from the said sen iority list, a Writ Petition No. 37269 of 1995 (Dinesh Singh and others Vs. State and others) was preferred before the Allahabad High Court by some Direct Recruits/claim petitioners and the same was disposed of vide order dated 20-12-1995 directing the authorities to decide the representations of the Direct Recruits. When the authorities did not decide the inter-se seniority be tween the Direct Recruits and the Ad-hoc appointees, another Writ Petition No. 27905/1996 was filed before the Allahabad High Court, which was dis posed of vide order dated 20-08- 1996 directing the authorities to ensure the com pliance of the order dated 20-12-1995 passed in W. P No. 37269/1995. In com pliance of the Allahabad High Court's order, the Engineer-in-Chief vide order dated 06-03-1997 decided the representa tions of the directly recruited J. Es. hold ing that the Adhoc appointees were regu larized under Rules 1979 on 14-02-1990 and 27-07-1990, hence, Ad-hoc appoint ees who were given appointment upto 27-07-1990 shall be senior to Direct Recruits. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petition No. 15109 of 1997 (New No. 5631 of 2001) was preferred before the Allahabad High Court by some of the Direct. Recruits and the same was received on transfer to this High Court for its dis posal under the U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000. This Court vide order dated 22-06-2006 while disposing of the petition di rected the Direct Recruits to approach the Public Service Tribunal. After creation of the State of Uttaranchal (now 'uttarakhand'), an inter-se seniority list of Adhoc appointees and Direct Recruits showing the Adhoc J. Es. as senior were issued on 09-01-2002. Feeling aggrieved by seniority list issued in the year 2002 some of the Direct Recruits preferred Writ Petition No. 1961/2005 (S/s) which was disposed of directing the authorities to con sider their representations. However, some of the Direct Recruits also preferred a Writ Petition No. 714 of 2005 (S/s) before this Court and the said petition was transferred to the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand for its disposal vide order dated 09-06-2005. Thereafter, the Direct Recruits filed a claim petition before the Tribunal un der section 4 of the Public Service Tribu nal Act for seeking the following reliefs :- " (a) to issue order or direction to the respondents quashing seniority list dated 19-02-1994 and 09-04- 2002 passed by respondents; (AA) to declare the initial appointment and subsequent regularization and pro motion of the private respondents (Adhoc J. Es.) as illegal, de-hors the rules and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further to declare the Clause-5 of the Regularization Rules 1979 related to the non-consultation with the Public Service Commission is illegal and violative of the original Rules 1951; (AAA) to set-aside the impugned or der dated 06-03-1997, 02-11-2002, 15-07-2006 and 24-08-2006 (con tained in Annexure nos. 8-A, 8-AA, 8-C, 8-E and 8-F to the claim petition ). Further directions are sought to cor rect the seniority list dated 09-04-2002 and 15-07-2006 and place the petition ers above the ad-hoc persons and also give the benefit of seniority and serv ice benefits w. e. f. the date of their selection i. e. 06-01-1990 made by the Public Service Commission; (b) to issue an order or direction com manding the respondents to declare the petitioners as senior to adhoc Jun ior Engineers those were conditionally appointed against substantive posts on 12-12-1990, whereas petitioners were directly selected by the Public Service Commission on 06-01-1990 and ap pointed on 15-02-1990; (c andd) to issue a direction to respondents to correct the seniority list dated 19-02-1994 and subsequent list of seniority to restrain the adhoc J. Es. not to consider pro motion on the basis of final seniority lists dated 19-02-1994 and 09-04 -. 2002. "
(3.) IT has been alleged by the claim petitioners (Direct Recruits) in the claim petition that the private respondents (Adhoc appointees) were appointed by the Government on Adhoc basis only for one year and they could not claim their regu larization on such posts. The initial appointments of Adhoc J. Es. were also chal lenged by the Direct Recruits before the Tri bunal by way of amendment in the month of September 2006. IT was further alleged that the appointments of the Adhoc J. Es. were illegal and de- hors the Rules. The Services of Adhoc J. E. s could not have been regularized under the Rules, 1979. The regularization of the Adhoc J. E. s also dehors the Rules. The seniority list issued by the State Government placing the Adhoc regularized J. E. s above the directly recruited candidates appointed through the Commission is violative of the Rules made in this behalf. The written statement was filed on behalf of the State Government alleging therein that the service of those Adhoc J. Es. appointed before 01-10-1986 and completed 3 years service were only regu larized on 14-02-1990 and 27-07-1990 in accordance with the Regularization Rules 1979. It was further alleged that the selection list prepared by the Commission was received on 15-02-1990 and the ap pointment letters were issued to the Di rectly Recruits J. Es. by the Government on 27-07-1990 after completing the necessary formalities.;