JUDGMENT Delivered By Hon'ble Sri B. Lal, Chairman: 1. Present claim petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.10.2007 to the extent it relates to the petitioners. Petitioners also prayed to consider their case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against available vacancies or in alternative to consider their cases for officiation on the post of Executive Engineers as given to other persons who are junior to them. The order has also been challenged being violative to Government of Uttarakhand direction contained in office order dated 23.6.2003. 2. Heard Sri M.C.Pant learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, Learned Assistant Presenting Officer and Sri J.P.Kansal learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on substantive posts and thereafter approved by Public Service Commission in accordance with the Subordinate Engineering Service Rules 1951. The detail of their appointments and seniority have been given as follows : SI. No Names Initial date Seniority Seniority Date of of No. as stood No. in final promotion as appointment in Gen. seniority list Assistant as J.E. Cadre and of Hill Sub Engineer. issued by the Cadre dt. PSC 19.2.1994. 1. Vinod Kumar Virdi 15.11.1973 2071 98 01 07.1999 2. Pramod Kumar Jain 04.07.1973 2063 96 01.07.1999 3. Anil Kumar 22.02.1972 1749 85 01.07.1999 Aggarwal 4. Pawan Kumar Jain 31.01.1972 1871 91 01.07.1999 5. U.S. Sangar 28.10.1972 1728 83 01.07.1999 4. It is stated that name of the private Respondent Nos.24 and 46, in the impugned order have not figured in the seniority list dated 19.2.1994. The name of Sh. Chandra Mohan Pandey, Respondent No. 4 figured at SI.No. 25 who was appointed on 6.10.1983 on ad-hoc basis and was alleged to have been regularised on 14.2.1990 and his name figured at SI. No. 209 in the final seniority list. Similarly in Para 4 (c), the date of appointment of other respondents have also been disclosed. It is alleged that persons junior to petitioners, as per seniority list, have been assigned the charge of Full Time Officiating Executive Engineer and the petitioners though senior, have not been given the same opportunity, which is violation of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that persons junior to petitioners, as per seniority list, have been assigned the charge of Full Time Officiating Executive Engineer and the petitioners though senior, have not been given the same opportunity, which is violation of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 145/05 (S/B) has dealt with the similar issue and observed that even in cases of officiation on higher posts, seniority cannot be ignored and placing the juniors above the petitioners as Incharge with power of supervision and control over them is nothing but humiliation and denial of self respect. Therefore, it is further stated that inspite of availability of vacancies and the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in earlier cases, the State has not made promotions on the vacant posts and appointed the juniors as Full Time Incharge in the divisions with all financial and administrative powers. Though the State has not filed their written statement inspite of sufficient time afforded to them, however private Respondent No. 5 has filed its written statement, wherein it is asserted that petitioners are not senior, as Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1998 against Graduate Engineer Quota and therefore he is senior to the petitioners in the. grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil) whereas petitioners were promoted only in 1999 as Assistant Engineers. It is further stated that the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) has not yet been finalized and therefore it cannot be said that petitioners are senior to him. It is submitted that for overall development of the State, respondents had to complete the infrastructure, project and work on priority which in the absence of requisite manpower was not possible and therefore in emergent situation, Respondent No. 1 made appointments from amongst the senior most Assistant Engineer (Civil) as Full Time Incharge Executive Engineers. These appointments/ transfers are not regular promotions but only an interim arrangement to meet the exigency of the development of the State. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 and 15 of the. Constitution of India. 5. Admittedly, large number of vacancies of Executive Engineers are lying vacant in P.W.D. Department in Uttarakhand State. These appointments/ transfers are not regular promotions but only an interim arrangement to meet the exigency of the development of the State. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 and 15 of the. Constitution of India. 5. Admittedly, large number of vacancies of Executive Engineers are lying vacant in P.W.D. Department in Uttarakhand State. The seniority list dated 19.2.1994 was prepared by the State of U.P. The State of Uttarakhand could not prepare its own seniority list due to which the Government servants are compelled to enter into litigation with the State or among themselves. In claim Petition No. 86/07, this Tribunal observed that in the event of availability of vacancies in the department, the practice of making appointments on promotional post on officiating basis is against the rules and directions of the State Government and Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore in case there are vacancies available, the only course to fill up them is by regular promotions in accordance with the rules framed by the State themselves under Article 309 of he Constitution. The Respondents (State) appear violating rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and their own guide lines contained in Office Order No. 1801/Karmik-2/2002 dated 23.6.2003, wherein a detailed procedure has been prescribed for calculating the vacancies for the promotion and the procedure for holding the D.P.C. etc. 6. Ld. A.P.O. submitted that no promotions have been made by impugned order but the appointments have been made only to facilitate smooth functioning in the Divisions (P.W.D.) and exercise administrative control over the employees. Therefore, there is no violation of Government order. Presuming that the appointments are made on officiating basis, in that event also, the well established principle of seniority cannot be ignored. In this connection Hon'ble High Court, Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 145/05/SB, Bhupendra Singh Kaira Vs. Stae of Uttaranchal & others has very clearly stated that the Government servant is entitled to continue in service with self respect and without humiliation. Placing a junior above the petitioners as Incharge with power of supervision and control over them is nothing but humiliation and denial of self respect to Government Servants. 7. Stae of Uttaranchal & others has very clearly stated that the Government servant is entitled to continue in service with self respect and without humiliation. Placing a junior above the petitioners as Incharge with power of supervision and control over them is nothing but humiliation and denial of self respect to Government Servants. 7. In view of the above, the arbitrary appointment on officiating basis without looking into the aspect of the seniority in the division, it is possible that a junior is appointed as officiating Executive• Engineer with all financial and administrative powers and seniors are placed under him in the division, which affects the' efficiency and functioning of the employees. In service jurisprudence the respect of seniority is well recognized and therefore any effort to ignore the seniority in appointments on officiating basis causes discontentment among the employees by which ultimately the functioning of the State is affected. 8. The fact, that the persons appointed as per order dated 1.10.2007, are not entitled for the pay and allowances of Executive Engineer, do not make any difference as self respect has a greater moral value than the pecuniary benefits. Therefore, the order passed on 1.10.2007 appears to be against the established principle of seniority even in the matter of appointment of officiating basis. In. the absence of any seniority list at present in the state of Uttarakhand, the seniority list already existing from the time of UP can be made basis for making such officiating appointments. Hon'ble High Court in the Matter of P.L.Kapoor Vs. State & others, Writ petition No. 823/SB/2002 also issued guide lines for promotion on the basis of seniority list existing prior to 9.11.2000 till Uttarakhand prepared its own seniority list. Therefore the principle of seniority should have been applied in the matter of officiating appointments in the Division (P.W.D.) 9. In view of this, claim petition is allowed in the manner that the principle carved out in Pyare Lal Kapoor's case shall also be strictly observed in the case of' appointment of Full Time Executive Engineers on officiating basis. The impugned order shall be amended to the extent it violates the principle of seniority so far as petitioners are concerned.