Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for the following relief: - "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the present petition for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) The impugned Seniority Lists No. 810 and No. 811 dated 01.10.2013 (Annexure 12 & 13 respectively) issued by respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it assign the seniority to the petitioners below to respondent No. 3 and 4. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to assign the correct seniority position to the petitioners in the impugned Seniority Lists and the names of the petitioners may be placed over and above to the names of the respondent No. 2 & 3. (iii) That a direction be issued to the official respondents that the petitioners may be considered senior to the respondent No. 2 & 3 while considering their cases for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (PLCC). (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." (A) FACTS IN BRIEF:
(3.) The petitioners and the respondents No. 3 and 4 herein were inducted in the service of RRVPNL on the post of Junior Engineer I -II. They are presently working on the posts of Assistant Engineer (PLCC) in respondent Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigma Ltd. (RRVPNL). The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the seniority lists S. Nos. 810 and 811 dated 1.10.2013 issued by the respondents Nigam whereby, the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been placed higher to the petitioners in the seniority of Assistant Engineers. The service conditions of Engineers appointed in RRVPNL are governed by Rajasthan State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969 (for short, 'the Regulations of 1969'). The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioners No. 2 to 10 claim to have been regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (PLCC) vide orders issued by the Secretary (Administration), RRVPNL on 30.9.2003 and 25.9.2004 respectively as per their seniority. The Secretary (Administration), RRVPNL issued a notification dated 18.12.2003 inviting applications for filling up two vacancies of Assistant Engineer (PLCC) against 1/3rd direct recruitment quota from amongst those Junior Engineers who had served the Nigam for atleast 2 years and were possessing the qualification of B.E./B.Tech. or any other equivalent degree. A few of the petitioners as well as the respondents No. 3 and 4 applied for promotion against the advertised vacancies. A selection process ensued whereafter, an appointment order dated 16.10.2004 was issued in the favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4 promoting them and appointing them on the posts of Assistant Engineer. After the petitioners and the private respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineers, numerous seniority lists (tentative and final) were issued by the respondent Nigam uptill the year 2013 wherein, the petitioners were placed at a higher position as compared to the respondents No. 3 and 4. Gist of the seniority lists issued in the cadre of Assistant Engineers till the years 2012 enumerated herein below: - (i) The Secretary (Administration), RRVPNL issued a seniority list dated 1.10.2005 (Annex.5) determining the seniority of Assistant Engineer working in the department as on 1.4.2005. The names of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 to 10 stand at S. No. 12 and 16 to 24 respectively in the said seniority list. The dates of appointment of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 to 10 are reflected in the said seniority list as 30.9.2003 and 25.9.2004 respectively. The respondents No. 3 and 4 stand at S. No. 25 and 26 in this seniority list with their date of appointment being shown as 16.10.2004. (ii) Another final seniority list dated 24.4.2006 (Annex.6) was issued by the Secretary (Administration), RRVPNL wherein the names of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 to 10 stand at S. No. 12 and 16 to 24 respectively whereas the names of the respondents No. 3 and 4 stand at S. No. 25 and 26. The respective dates of appointments orders of the petitioners No. 1, 2 to 10 and respondents No. 3 & 4 as mentioned in the seniority list Annex.5 are maintained. (iii) Seniority lists dated 5.4.2007 (Annex.7), 8.4.2008 (Annex.8) and 13.4.2009 (Annex.9) were issued in the subsequent years wherein also, the seniority position of the petitioners vis -a -vis the respondents No. 3 & 4 was maintained. (iv) The Secretary (Administration) issued tentative seniority lists dated 15.4.2010 (Annex.10) and 28.9.2012 (Annex.11) in the cadre of Assistant Engineers as on 1.4.2010 and 1.4.2012 respectively. In these lists also, the names of the petitioners are placed above the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the order of seniority. The petitioners claim that out of the blue and to their utter shock and surprise, two final seniority lists Nos. 810 and 811 dated 1.10.2013 were published by the Secretary (Administration) wherein, the seniority position of the petitioners has been drastically altered vis -a -vis the respondents No. 3 and 4. In these seniority lists, the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been placed at S. No. 9 and 10 whereas, the petitioners have been assigned seniority between S. No. 11 to 22. Copies of the seniority list Nos. 810 and 811 dated 1.10.2013 have been placed on record as Annex.12 and Annex.13 respectively. The petitioners claim that these seniority lists are absolutely malafide and were issued in order to give undue advantage of seniority and promotion to the respondents No. 3 and 4. They thus submitted a representation dated 9.10.2013 to the appropriate authority raising grievances against the illegal seniority lists dated 1.10.2013. The petitioners assert that a new office was set up in the Nigam after a meeting of the Board of Directors dated 19.8.2013 and as a consequence, a few fresh promotional posts of Executive Engineers from the cadre of Assistant Engineers have been created. The petitioners apprehend that in the event of a promotional exercise being undertaken, the respondents No. 3 and 4 would gain undue advantage over the petitioners and will be promoted without entitlement. Upon this, they have approached this court assailing the legality and validity of the two seniority lists Annex.12 & 13 dated 1.10.2013.;