P.C. BORTHAKUR & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ARUNANCHAL PRADESH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.4.95, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1894 of 1993.

(2.) Basic facts of the case are : The appellants started their service career as Lower Division Assistants in the Supply and Transport Directorate in May 1962 and eventually promoted to the post, Upper Division Assistant, in April/May, 1964. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also promoted as UDA with effect from 9.6.64 and 1.8.64 respectively. A Board was constituted by the State Govt for preparation of seniority list vide notification dated 8.10.73. The Board published a provisional seniority list, vide notification dated 4.4.73 calling upon all those affect to submit their objections. Final seniority list was published on 11.4.74. As some of the UDAs were promoted as Superintendents, the final seniority list dated 18.5.94 was updated till 22.3.79, vide notification Annexure II. The appellants and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were placed at Serial Nos. 18,20,21 and 22 respectively. The same order of seniority was maintained in the subsequently published list dated 6.2.85, Annexure III. Based on this seniority list Annexure III, the appellants were also promoted as Superintendents with marginal difference of couple of months with effect from 2.5.89 and 1.9.89, vide Annexure IVA and IVB. The same order of seniority was continued to be maintained even as Superintendents as per seniority list published on 2.4.91. It may be noted that the respondent No. 5 does not figure in this list as he was not promoted as Superintendent by that time.

(3.) It was on 2.7.93, that the respondent State Govt came out with an order Annexure VI not only cancelling appellants promotion as Superintendent but also reverting them to the lower post of Assistant, with effect from 3.5.89. By the same order they were also promoted and reappointed as Superintendents with effect from 28.2.92, placing them in seniority below respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is this order Annexure VI which the appellants challenged in the writ petition and lost hence this appeal.