Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1363 (GAU)

PEMA NORBU KHRIME v. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2015-10-16

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. By filing both the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent-authorities to count their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of their initial officiating appointment/period of service as Assistant Engineer from 19.3.1996 to 14.2.2013 and the respondent-authority by declaring the seniority by way of counting their seniority, the petitioners' officiating service from 19.3.1996 to 14.2.2013 as Assistant Engineer on officiating/ad hoc basis ought to have been regularised with effect from their initial ad hoc/officiating appointment as Assistant Engineer, i.e., on 19.3.1996. 2. The nature of the grievances in both the writ petitions are identical and similar, therefore, the facts, in short campus of both the cases, are taken up together and disposed of the same by a common judgment and order, The petitioner in the instant petition, i.e., WP(C)No. 339(AP) of 2014 presently serving as Assistant Engineer, Highway Sub-Division, PWD, Khonsa in Tirap District of Arunachal Pradesh was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department under the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 1992 and thereafter, he was allowed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) initially for a period of six months vide order dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure A) with the existing pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 p.m. Similarly, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 340 (AP)/2014 presently serving as Assistant Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) under Public Works Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 1992 and he was subsequently allowed to officiate as such as Assistant Engineer (Civil) by the aforesaid order dated 19.3.1996 with the existing pay scale at the relevant time holding in the post. 3. 3. The petitioners while serving in the officiating capacity as Assistant Engineers, an O.M. No.6/91 dated 31.7.1996 was issued conveying the decision of the State Government to stop the practise of making ad hoc appointments by the appointing authority and also to review the cases of ad hoc appointments and subsequently vide O.M. No.6/96 dated 19.9.1996 prohibiting the appointments on ad hoc basis fixing cut of date as 31.7.1996, i.e., from the date of issue of the earlier O.M and to maintain the status quo in respect of employees appointed up to 31.7.1996, those who are appointed on ad hoc basis and to allow them to continue provisionally in the officiating capacity against the posts holding by them instead of ad hoc capacity. The said O.M. No. 6/96 dated 19.9.1996 also laid down the modalities that ad hoc appointments cannot be allowed to continue for a indefinite period as per rules and instructions of the Government now considering the magnitude of problems arising out of ad hoc appointment already made so far by different appointing authorities/heads of departments/heads of offices, it is further decided by the Government as below : (i) The date of issue of Government Circular No. OM-6/92 dated 31.7.1996 shall be treated as "Cut of Date" for appointment or promotion to any post on ad hoc basis by all the authorities concerned under the Government except in respect of the type of cases referred to in Para 3 of the Govt. Circular NQ. OM-6/91 dated 31.7.1996. It is assumed that no ad hoc appointment of ad hoc promotion to any post has been made by the Heads of Departments/Appointing authorities concerned with effect from 01.8.1996 in pursuance of Govt. Circular No. OM-6/91 dated 31.7.1996. (ii) In respect of all the employees appointed so far (i.e., up to 31.7.1996) on ad hoc basis against direct recruitment posts of different Heads of Departments/Heads of Offices/Appointing authorities under the Government. "Status quo" shall be maintained and they may be allowed to continue provisionally in officiating capacity against the posts instead of ad hoc capacity with immediate effect and until further instruction/ order of the Government pending regularization of their cases by the competent authorities as per followings procedures: (a) If recruitment rules exists in that case on the recommendation of constituted DPC/Selection Board (recommendation to be based on educational/technical/professional qualification, experience and performance of the incumbents). (b) If no recruitment rules exits at present in that case on the recommendation of a Board to be constituted (recommendation to be based on educational/technical/professional qualification, experience and performance of incumbents). (iii) All the cases of ad hoc promotion so far effected under the order of respective Heads of Departments/Heads of Offices/Appointing authorities shall be placed before the constituted DPC/Selection Board or APPSC, as the case may be by the authorities concerned immediately for consideration/reguiarisation of such cases by the DPC/Selection Board/APPSC strictly in accordance with the provisions of existing recruitment rules within a period of six months from the date of issue of this circular. (iv) Further instruction of the Government on the point of monitoring the cases of ad hoc appointment/ad hoc promotions and on other allied matters relating to ad hoc appointment/promotion and for regularization of cases of existing ad hoc appointees will be issued separately in due course. 4. Heard Mr. Ur Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No.339 (AP) of 2014 and Mr. D.N. Bhattacherya, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.340 (AP) 2014. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms. L. Hage, learned Government advocate appearing for all official respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 5. The basic contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the respondent-authorities vide order dated 29.10.1998 reverted the petitioner in WP(C) No.339 (AP) of 2014 to his substantive post, i.e., Junior Engineer (Civil) and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner along with other three similarly person filed a Civil Rule No.5776 of 1098 at the principal seat and the same was transferred to this Bench and renumbered as WP(C) No.883 (AP) of 2001. This court while issuing notice, directed the respondent-authorities to allow the petitioners to continue in their respective post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) till returnable date vide order dated 18.11.1998. Pursuant to the said interim order, the respondent-authorities vide order dated 15.1.1999 the reversion order of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. 6. In the meantime, some Junior Engineers had approached the court by filing WP(C) No. 693 (AP) of 1999, WP(C) No.694 (AP) of 1999 and WP(C) No.695 (AP) of 1999. Pursuant to the said interim order, the respondent-authorities vide order dated 15.1.1999 the reversion order of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. 6. In the meantime, some Junior Engineers had approached the court by filing WP(C) No. 693 (AP) of 1999, WP(C) No.694 (AP) of 1999 and WP(C) No.695 (AP) of 1999. This court after hearing the parties, disposed the said writ petitions by a common order dated 24.5.2000 directed the respondent-authorities to consider the matter regarding promotion as per existing recruitment rules. The case of the petitioner was placed before the DPC for consideration. The DPC, in its meeting held on 27.4.2001 found that the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.667 in the seniority list and as such, he was not come within the zone of consideration for regular promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer and the regularisation of the service of the petitioner was refused by the DPC in the event that he would supersede more than 500 of his seniors, Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 9.5.2001. 7. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order dated 9.5.2001, the petitioner along with two others filed WP(C) No.882 (AP) of 2001 challenging the order dated 9.5.2001 and this court vide order dated 17.8.2001 directed the respondent-authorities that the service of the writ petitioners, as on the day as Assistant Engineer under the respondent-authority shall not be disturbed till final disposal of the writ petition. By virtue of the said order, the petitioners were allotted to continue in their officiating posts as Assistant Engineer (Civil). The aforesaid writ petition along with two other writ petitions, i.e., WP(C) No.881 (AP) of 2001 and WP(C) No.883 (AP) of 2001, were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 24.5.2002 directing the respondent-authority to place the case of the petitioners before the constituted DPC, Selection Board or APPSC as the case may be, which shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the posts of Assistant Engineer in terms of O.M. dated 31.7.1996 and 19.9.1996. 8. 8. Against the aforesaid common judgment and order dated 24.5.2002, the State respondents preferred writ appeals, i.e., WA No.361 (AP) of 2002, WA No.532 (AP) of 2002 and WA No.533 (AP) of 2002 assailing the legality and validity of the said judgment and order. The Division bench of this court dismissed the writ appeals vide order dated 25.5.2003 upholding the common judgment and order dated 24.6.2002. During pendency of the aforesaid writ appeals, the respondent-authority vide order dated 4.7.2002 reverting the petitioner along with some other similarly situated persons to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). Thereafter, the petitioner along with the other similarly situated persons preferred WP(C) Nos. 392, 393, 394 (AP) of 2002 challenging the said reversion order, which were subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 4.7.2002. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ appeals preferred by the State, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh was pleased to regularize the services of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 15.7.2013. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide order dated 19.3.1996, he was allowed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) and the subsequent interim orders passed by the court, he continued in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) up to 14.2.2012. But on the recommendation of the DPC dated 14.2.2013, the petitioner along with others were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from the date of recommendation of the DPC, i.e., 21.1.2013 without considering the long and continuous uninterrupted officiating service of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted the representation dated 25.4.2013 before the respondent-authority praying for counting his seniority by counting his officiating period of uninterrupted service as Assistant Engineer with effect from 19.3.1996. The respondent-authorities have not attended his representation so filed by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially allowed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 19.3.1996 for a period of 6 months and thereafter, he continued in the same capacity till his regular promotion on 14.2.2013 on the recommendation of DPC. He rendered services as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on officiating basis for more than 16 years continuously from the date of his initial officiating promotion up to the date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis. He rendered services as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on officiating basis for more than 16 years continuously from the date of his initial officiating promotion up to the date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis. As such, the petitioner has acquired a legal right to claim his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis. Correspondingly, the respondent-authorities are also duty bound to consider the long tenure of officiating period rendered by him for the purpose of counting his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 11. But in the instant case, the respondent-authorities without counting the long officiating period rendered by the petitioner, regularised his services w.e.f. the date of recommendation of the name of the petitioner by the DPC, i.e., 21.1.2013. Therefore, non-counting of long continuous period of officiating of the petitioner towards his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) casting a hostile discrimination and as such, violative of the fundamental rights enshrine in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is further contends that it is the settled position of law that if a person is allowed to officiate for a long period continuously without break, the service rendered by the petitioner in that capacity is required to be counted towards his seniority at the time of his regular promotion. But, the respondent-authority without considering the long continuous officiating service of the petitioner regularized his services from the date of recommendation of the DPC is in violation of the doctrine of continuous officiating service. Supporting his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court rendered in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 , wherein it has been held as below : (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the reguiarisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted." It is argued that since the case has been squarely covered by the aforesaid proposition of law, the petitioner is entitled for seniority from the initial date of his continuous officiating service in the post. 13. The State respondents have not filed their counter affidavit in this matter. However, it was argued that if the petitioner did not possess the required qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer under the Rules at the time of their initial appointment, their seniority cannot be counted from the date of their officiating appointments. Referring to the recruitment rules of Assistant Engineer, i.e., Recruitment to the Post of Assistant Engineer Rules, 2005 ('2005 Rules') the learned Addl. Advocate General has pointed out that the post of Assistant Engineer has to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. In case of recruitment by promotion from amongst the Junior Engineers of the Department, 5 years of regular service for degree holders in the grade is essential. Since the petitioner was appointed on 23.9.1992 as Junior Engineer, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer only on 23.9.1997. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of their initial officiating promotion. It also contends, matter of promotion cannot be given retrospective unless compelling or exceptional circumstances. Learned State counsel has placed the reliance on the following judgments : (1) State of W.B. and Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey and Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 371 (2) A.T. Gayakwad v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 GLT 10 (3) Amarjit Singh and Ors. v. Devi Ratan and Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 417 (4) Mayom Karge v. State of A.P., (2004) Supp GLT 623 14. v. Aghore Nath Dey and Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 371 (2) A.T. Gayakwad v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 GLT 10 (3) Amarjit Singh and Ors. v. Devi Ratan and Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 417 (4) Mayom Karge v. State of A.P., (2004) Supp GLT 623 14. In reply to the argument advanced by State respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner, who was a bachelor degree holder in Civil Engineering, was appointed as Junior Engineer on 24.9.1992. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.3.1996, he was allowed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil). The Office Memorandum No. 6/96 dated 19.9.1996 conferred the officiating status. Clause (ii)(a) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum laid down the modalities for regularization of the services on the recommendation of the DPC in the case of existence of Recruitment Rules within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the office Memorandum. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 24.5.2002 directed the State respondents to place the matter before the DPC, who shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the post of Assistant Engineer. The State respondents carried the matter on appeal. The appellate court vide judgment and order dated 26.5.2003 held that the case being squarely covered under the O.M., declined to interfere and directed the State respondents to act in accordance with the directions of the learned single Judge. Therefore, the State respondents are required to regularize the service of the petitioners, as mandated by the O.M. dated 19.9.1996 and any other view is not sustainable in the eye of law. 15. Further, the State respondents had not raised the question of qualifying service in the aforesaid writ petition as well in the writ appeal. Therefore, now the State respondents are debarred to raise the question of qualifying service at this stage. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Narender Chadha v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 157 held that the officers who were promoted without following the procedure prescribed under the rule, but they continuously worked for long period for nearly 15-20 years on the post, the period of their continuous offication was directed to be counted for seniority. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Narender Chadha v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 157 held that the officers who were promoted without following the procedure prescribed under the rule, but they continuously worked for long period for nearly 15-20 years on the post, the period of their continuous offication was directed to be counted for seniority. Following the ratio of Narender Chadha the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association held that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the Rules, the period of officiating service would be counted. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the Recruitment Rules, 1991 of the Public Works Department pointed out that the said Rules has not provide any qualifying service period for Degree holder Junior Engineers. Therefore, the argument advanced by the State Counsel has no legs to stand. 17. In regard to 2nd contention of the State respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred the dictionary meaning of the word uninterrupted. The Oxford Dictionary (5th Edition) the meaning of word 'uninterrupted' is known as without a break, with nothing stopping or blocking. In Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary the meaning of the word uninterrupted has been shown as continuous, not obstructed, The Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus vol. III the meaning of the word uninterrupted is shown as not interrupted, continuous. Thus, the words continuous/uninterrupted/without breaks are synonyms. Therefore, the argument of the State counsel that the petitioner continued in his officiating post by virtue of the orders of the Hon'ble court and as such continuation in the post cannot be said to be uninterrupted is illogical, not sustainable in law. 18. The learned State counsel, at no point of time, disputed the continuity of the service of the writ petitioners in their officiating capacity, but in course of his argument tried to impress upon the court that the petitioner continued in his officiating post only by virtue of the orders of the Hon'ble court and, therefore, his continuation in the post cannot be understood to be uninterrupted one. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner the since the word uninterrupted is synonymous to continues/without break as indicated above, the argument of the State counsel could not be accepted in' nay manner. Further, it is submitted that since the State respondents did not filed any affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ petition, the same stands admitted and, as such the Hon'ble court should have proceed on the basis of the said a admitted facts. Following the decisions are relied by the petitioners : (1) Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 (2) Narender Chadha v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 157 (3) Sri L. Chandrakishore Singh v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 284 (4) Naseen Banu v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 SC 2592 (5) Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 377 (6) Mandira Singh and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors., (2000) 2 GLT 222 (7) Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Guragaon v. East India Cotton MEG Co. Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 531 . 19. Referring to the decisions cited by the learned State counsel, it was argued that the ratio of the decision relied by the State counsel in State of W.B. and Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey and Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 371 is in regard to the corollary in conclusion A of the Constitution Bench Judgment in Direct Recruit case. Hence, the said ration is not applicable in this case (para 22). The proposition of law laid down in A.T. Gayakwad v. Union of India and Ors. is in regard to the proposition A of the Constitution Bench Judgment in Direct Recruit Case. Hence, the said ratio is not applicable in this case (para 6). Amarjit Singh case cited by the state counsel in support of his argument is not applicable in the present case as the fact and the question of law involved therein was in regard to retrospective promotion by counting the period of probation towards the seniority of the incumbents. However, the decision in Meyom Karge v. State of A.P. rather supports the case of the petitioner. As the petitioner in the case occupied the promotional post on officiating basis and continued to do so until the time he was granted regular promotion. 20. However, the decision in Meyom Karge v. State of A.P. rather supports the case of the petitioner. As the petitioner in the case occupied the promotional post on officiating basis and continued to do so until the time he was granted regular promotion. 20. Considered the above rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the bunch of documents so filed by the petitioners herein and various judgments pronounced by this court while the petitioners entered into several round of litigations to resist the orders of the respondent-authorities who intend to revert back the petitioners to their original-posts. However, from the various orders, the interest of the petitioners was well protected in the sense that they are allowed to continue in the same officiating post of promotion. In view of the orders so passed as well as the documents so relied upon by the petitioners and the decisions so rendered by this court, it can be at best hold that the petitioners are in continuous service in the same post as Assistant Engineer (ad hoc/officiating promotion). The respondent-authorities by their orders itself (Annexure L), order No.SPWD-097/2001-02 dated 16.2.2004, make it clear that the effect of ad hoc promotion was given with effect from 19.3.1996 and without any break, may be treated as on duty for all practical purpose. Then, thereafter, their services were regularized accordingly. 21. But subsequently they served show cause notice to the petitioners as to why such regularization should not be cancelled as the regularization was made without holding the DPC, though the petitioners replied to the show cause notice but the respondent-authority vide order No.SPWD-097/2001-02 dated 15.2.2006, the same has been disposed of with an elaborate order holding thereby that the DPC has not recommended the name of the petitioners as they are too juniors than to other Junior Engineers and the fact is reflected in the said order. It is to be noted that though the petitioners has annexed the said reply as annexure-N (internal page 75 of the writ petition) but the findings of the respondent-authority, i.e., Commissioner (PWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was not challenged nor the findings of the DPC is brought on record as to what ground the DPC has not considered the seniority of the petitioners. 22. 22. It is well settled that the matter of promotion will only be considered by the DPC, which will be final for the Department concerned and it can be challenged only there appears in perversity and illegality in the decision of the DPC. The petitioners have brought nothing on record to show the findings of the DPC neither it has been challenged. Similarly, the petitioners have not furnished any sorts of list about other employees in the establishment who may be junior or senior to them so as to assess that their seniority has been denied by the respondent-authorities. By the order of the Division Bench dated 22.5.2009 in WP(C) No.1382/2006 while entertaining the prayer of the petitioners where the question was raised whether the petitioner is a scheduled tribe of Arunachal Pradesh to determine their entitlements for promotion in the channel of reserved or general category candidates, It was finally held by the Division Bench of this court as follows : "18... The petitioners are presently continuing the post of Assistant Engineer under orders of the court. As the petitioners have continued for long and they must have come up to higher levels of seniority, while affirming the order dated 15.2.2006 insofar as the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 1382/2006 and 145/2009 are concerned, we are of the view that their continuance in the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis is a matter that should be left to be determined by the authorities of the State. The authorities of the State in doing so will take into account the fact as to whether if the petitioners are to be allowed to continue on officiating basis any prejudice will be caused to any of their seniors. If such prejudice is caused to any senior, naturally, such officiating arrangement will not be allowed. However, in the event of no such prejudice results, the authorities will be at liberty to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis." 23. If such prejudice is caused to any senior, naturally, such officiating arrangement will not be allowed. However, in the event of no such prejudice results, the authorities will be at liberty to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis." 23. By the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, it has also been made clear that the respondent-authority is to consider the matter of seniority of all the incumbents in the establishment so that no prejudice may be caused to any of the officer, who may be senior to the petitioners, Now the petitioners herein have given much stress on the point that they are in continuous service in the said post without interrupted, which contention can, however, be accepted in view of the catena of decisions as discussed above. There can be do doubt that the petitioners continued in the same post from the date of their officiating promotion. But similarly, the petitioners should have establish before this court by producing the seniority list of all the incumbents of the establishment that the seniority of the petitioners are above all the other employees in the cadre under the establishment and their seniority has been curbed-down by the respondent-authorities. The findings of DPC are very much relevant, which is not produced by this court. The, again, the findings of the respondent-authorities while rejecting the show cause so furnished by the petitioners is very much relevant to highlight the fact behind as to why the promotion of the petitioners was not granted. 24. In the absence of such specific relevant material before this court also about the last DPC, this court is not in a position to interfere into the order of the respondent-authority whereby the petitioners have granted impugned order of regularization of the service of the petitioner. In the absence of findings of the DPC, this court is also not in a position to appreciate as to what is the parameter of consideration which was placed before the committee particularly in respect of the petitioners but however, as because the services of the petitioners have been regularized with effect from 14.2.2013, it can be considered that the continuous services of the petitioners from the date of their officiating promotion as Assistant Engineer, i.e., 19.3.1996 was not considered. 25. 25. In the instant case, the petitioners have been able to prove that they are in continuous service since from the date of their appointment on 23.3.1992 and/officiating promotion as on 19.3.1996 without any break. So, there is a scope on the part of the respondent-authorities to appreciate such aspect. That apart, the eligibility criteria for qualifying period for promotion as per recruitment rules is to be decided by the appointing authority having regard to the recruitment rules if the case of the petitioners is found to be qualified for promotion in such continuous period of service, then also, there is a scope for consideration for promotion of the petitioners from the due date after qualifying period of service. Even though, all such matter was not specifically pleaded by the respondent-authorities by filing counter affidavit but this court is bound to appreciate all aspects not to defeat the ends of justice. 26. In views of all above, matter is referred to the respondent-authorities to appreciate all the aspects by holding proper DPC by taking into account that seniority of the petitioners will be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of regularization, and officiating period is to be counted for considering seniority. Qualifying period for promotion shall be considered as per recruitment rules. The respondent-authority will prepare a seniority list/gradation list positively and place the same before the DPC for determining all aspect of controversy. It is also noted that the petitioners have already filed their representation immediately after the aforesaid order vide application dated 17.6.2013 and 18.3.2014 but the same are yet to be adjudicated by the respondent-authorities. 27. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the representations of the petitioners in view of the observations and findings as indicated above within a reasonable period preferably 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.