Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 161 (GAU)

M. Moanungba Jamir v. State Of Nagaland

2020-02-07

NELSON SAILO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The issues involved in the 2 (two) writ petitions are similar and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr. C.T Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Longkumer for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 264(K)/2018, Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 74(K)/2019, Ms. S. Mere, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, for the State respondents in both the writ petitions and Mr.Taka Masa, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong for the respondent Nos. 41 to 48, 50, 63, 54, 56 to 58, 60 to 68 & 70 in WP(C) No. 74/2019 and for the respondent Nos. 6 to 22 in WP(C) No. 264(K)/2018. I have also heard Mr.Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the respondent No. 40 in WP(C) No. 74/2019. 3. The learned senior counsel Mr. C.T Jamir submits that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 264(K)/2018 were initially appointed as Sectional Officers (SO) on contract/adhoc basis between 1988 to 1994. Their services were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 08.09.2001 vide Order dated 05.10.2001 (Annexure-A). He submits that regularization was made after obtaining clearance of Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&ARD). 4. The learned senior counsel submits that the private respondent Nos. 5, 18 to, 22, were initially appointed on contract basis as Junior Engineers (JE) and were subsequently regularized in service. The respondent Nos. 6 to 17 were appointed through NPSC vide Notification dated 01.05.2003. Referring to the chart under paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition, the learned senior counsel submits that the private respondents mentioned therein who were appointed on contract basis and subsequently regularized were given retrospective seniority and therefore, the petitioners being similarly situated are claiming similar benefit. 5. The learned senior counsel submits that in the year 1997, the Government of Nagaland resolved a policy to upgrade the existing posts of Sectional Officer Grade- I (S.O-I), Computer Grade-I (CG-I), Surveyor Grade-IV(SG-IV), Asst. Driller, Mines Owner-man, Asst. Cartographer, Draughtsman (Civil) Grade-I (Engineering) to that of Junior Engineer Class-II Gazette (J.E-II) in all Engineering Departments. 5. The learned senior counsel submits that in the year 1997, the Government of Nagaland resolved a policy to upgrade the existing posts of Sectional Officer Grade- I (S.O-I), Computer Grade-I (CG-I), Surveyor Grade-IV(SG-IV), Asst. Driller, Mines Owner-man, Asst. Cartographer, Draughtsman (Civil) Grade-I (Engineering) to that of Junior Engineer Class-II Gazette (J.E-II) in all Engineering Departments. Accordingly, upgradation was carried out in a phase manner and those S.O-I, who had the requisite qualifications were upgraded to the post of J.E. The learned senior counsel submits that vide the O.M dated 06.03.1997 (Annexure-D), 486 existing post of S.O from different Engineering Departments were upgraded and designated as J.E w.e.f. 01.04.1997. Thereafter, 237 posts of S.O, CG-I, SG-I, etc. were upgraded to the post of J.E vide O.M dated 19.01.1998 (Annexure-E) w.e.f. 01.04.1997 and vide Office Order dated 27.04.1998 (Annexure-F), the Department of Works & Housing (Department of W&H) also upgraded 12 posts of S.O-I as J.E w.e.f 01.04.1997. Again by another Office Order dated 23.07.1998 (Annexure-G), 16 S.O-I were upgraded to the post of J.E w.e.f. 01.04.1997. He submits that the petitioners are also similarly situated, and therefore a similar yardstick should be applied. 6. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as S.O- I on contract/adhoc basis and their services regularized vide Order dated 20.11.2001 w.e.f 08.09.2001 with a condition that their seniority would be determined from the date of joining their service. Subsequently, in view of the general upgradation of the posts on S.O-I to that of J.E, the petitioners who were serving as S.O-I on regular basis were upgraded to the post of J.E vide Order dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure-H). 7. Mr. C.T Jamir, learned senior counsel submits that by O.M dated 24.01.2012, a tentative seniority list of J.E as on 01.09.2011 was circulated for information to all concerned and objection/complaint if any was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of the O.M. If no representation was received within the stipulated time, the seniority list would be treated as final. He submits that in the said list, the petitioners figured at serial Nos. 192, 194-199, 201-205, 207, 208, 210-216, 218-224 and the date of counting their seniority in the grade of J.E was shown as 08.09.2001. The private respondents appeared at serial No. 226, 248-259, 261, 264, 286, 289 & 290 and they were all placed below the petitioners. He submits that in the said list, the petitioners figured at serial Nos. 192, 194-199, 201-205, 207, 208, 210-216, 218-224 and the date of counting their seniority in the grade of J.E was shown as 08.09.2001. The private respondents appeared at serial No. 226, 248-259, 261, 264, 286, 289 & 290 and they were all placed below the petitioners. He submits that to the knowledge of the petitioners, no complainant/objection was submitted against the said seniority list and that many promotions have been made on the basis of the said seniority list. 8. The learned senior counsel submits that due to certain anomalies and cases of supersession in seniority position in the post of J.E after the upgradation from S.O-I to J.E, the Department of W&H constituted a 5 (five) member Committee vide Notification dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure-L), with the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of W&H as the Chairman. The Committee through the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of W&H vide Communication dated 29.06.2019 (Annexure-M) made a query from the Engineer-in-Chief, NDPWD to clarify whether supersession existed in the upgradation of S.O-I to that of J.E and if so, whether the same had been resolved. In reply to the said query, the Engineer-in-Chief, vide Communication dated 21.07.2016 informed the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of W&H that supersession of seniors by juniors existed and suggested that seniority in the post J.E should be prepared from the date of upgradation or from the date of regularization in the rank of S.O-I. The P&ARD after considering all the materials and analyzing the issue scrupulously, rendered their advise on 27.09.2016 (Annexure-P) for fixing the seniority of all the J.Es already upgraded from the level of S.O-I with effect from their regular appointment in the post of S.O-I. Thereafter, a common tentative seniority list of J.E for diploma in civil engineering, non technical and certificate course was circulated vide Communication dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure-Q) in the said list, the names of the petitioners figured at serial Nos. 82-93, 95- 101, 103, 104, 106-113 and the date of their regularization was shown as 08.09.2001 and which was the same for counting seniority in the present grade. The said seniority list was not finalized and instead another tentative seniority list purportedly in terms of the observation P&ARD dated 27.09.2016 was issued. 82-93, 95- 101, 103, 104, 106-113 and the date of their regularization was shown as 08.09.2001 and which was the same for counting seniority in the present grade. The said seniority list was not finalized and instead another tentative seniority list purportedly in terms of the observation P&ARD dated 27.09.2016 was issued. In the said list dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure-R), the petitioners figured at serial Nos. 89, 91-102, 104, 105, 107-113, 115-121 and the date of their appointment as J.E was shown as 01.05.2006 instead 08.09.2001 i.e. the date on which they were regularized as S.O-I. 9. Aggrieved with above tentative seniority list, the petitioners submitted representations requesting rectification. Another tentative seniority list of J.Es as on January 2018 was issued vide Memorandum dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure-S) where the petitioners were placed exactly as the tentative seniority list dated 12.06.2017. The petitioners being aggrieved submitted a joint representation (Annexure-T) for rectification of the seniority list. However, their representation was rejected pursuant to the meeting held on 16.03.2018 and the decision was taken in the meeting in terms of the advice given by the P&ARD vide their U.O No. 680 dated 19.12.2017 which in turn was referable to the recommendation of the meeting held on 14.11.2017 in office Chamber of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of W&H. 10. As per meeting minutes dated 14.11.2017 a review of earlier advised given by the P&ARD was due to the following points amongst others:- '(a) When the date of regularization in S.O-I is taken as reference for the fixation of J.E seniority list, the direct recruit JEs become which juniors to those JEs, who were upgraded at the latter stage. It may be mentioned that the direct recruit JEs never figured at the level of S.O-I. Hence, it becomes practically difficult to prepare JE senior list basing on S.O-I. (b) The fixation seniority list of JEs basing on date of their regular elevation to higher grade and JE(promotion/upgradation/direct recruitment through NPSC/regularization etc) will have a uniform determining factor. Therefore, the member dwell on to fixed the seniority based on the date of promotion/upgradation etc.' 11. Aggrieved with the above action, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 57(K)/2018 challenging Agenda No. 3 of meeting minutes dated 16.03.2018 and the impugned tentative senior list dated 22.01.2018. Therefore, the member dwell on to fixed the seniority based on the date of promotion/upgradation etc.' 11. Aggrieved with the above action, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 57(K)/2018 challenging Agenda No. 3 of meeting minutes dated 16.03.2018 and the impugned tentative senior list dated 22.01.2018. During the pendency of the writ petition, the private respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition enclosed a Memorandum dated 26.03.2018 by which seniority of JEs under the NPWD as on March 2018 was circulated. The petitioners in the list figured at serial Nos. 88, 90-101, 103, 104, 106-112, 114-116, 118-120 and the private respondents figured at serial Nos. 67, 71-87. The writ petition was therefore withdrawn with liberty to challenge the said seniority list. That is how the present writ petition has been filed. 12. The learned senior counsel Mr. C.T Jamir submits that the State respondents in the P&ARD having already given an advice to fix the seniority of JEs by taking the effective date from the date of their regular appointment as S.O-I and therefore, they could not have made a U-turn at a later stage by fixing the seniority from the date of upgradation to the post of JE from S.O-I. Referring to the advice given by P&ARD on 27.09.2016, learned senior counsel submits that a detailed study and examination was made by the P&ARD and it was only thereafter that the advise was given for counting seniority from the date of regular appointment as S.O-I. Since then, no new grounds or materials have cropped up for the official respondents to take a different view. In fact, the private respondents have not made any complaint or submitted representation against the tentative seniority dated 24.01.2012 and therefore, the same has attained a finality as clearly provided in the tentative seniority list dated 24.01.2012. He therefore submits that under the circumstances, the respondent authorities be directed to rectify and re-fix the seniority list in the rank of JEs w.e.f. the date of regularization as S.O-I i.e. 08.09.2001. 13. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 74(K)/2019 adopts the arguments and stand taken by Mr. C.T Jamir, the learned senior counsel. She submits that in her case, the petitioners were initially appointed on contract/adhoc basis as S.O-II, Computer Grade-II and Draughtsman-II between the year 1997 to 2006. She submits that the petitioner Nos. 13. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 74(K)/2019 adopts the arguments and stand taken by Mr. C.T Jamir, the learned senior counsel. She submits that in her case, the petitioners were initially appointed on contract/adhoc basis as S.O-II, Computer Grade-II and Draughtsman-II between the year 1997 to 2006. She submits that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were promoted on officiating basis as S.O-I on 19.11.1999 and 04.07.2000 respectively. The learned counsel submits that the criteria for determining the seniority has been prescribed in the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997 (Rules of 1997). Referring to Rule 22 of the Rules of 1997, the learned counsel submits that seniority of persons recruited under Rule 8(b) under the heading Departmental Promotion shall be in accordance with the date of promotion or regularization by the DPC. Referring to the Office Order dated 31.03.2007 (Annexure A1 of the writ petition), the learned counsel submits that all the petitioners were regularized on the recommendation of the DPC held on 16.03.2007 and their respective dates for counting seniority was w.e.f the date of their official promotion. Therefore, the petitioners should be given their respective seniority as indicated in the said Office Order. 14. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel further submits that for counting seniority, the respondent authorities have come up with different methods to compute seniority such as date of upgradation, date of appointment, date of Cabinet approval, date of regularization and non-DPC regularization. She submits that such criteria cannot be adopted in view of the fact that the petitioners were regularized on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC, which is also in terms of the criteria provided under the Rules of 1997. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has relied upon Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 723 . 15. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel further submits that re-designation is not promotion but an improvement of position. She submits that DPC is the authority for recommending promotion and fixing seniority. Referring to paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in- opposition of the State respondents, she submits that the stand taken by the State respondents for having re-considered the criteria for fixation of seniority is due to technical complication. However, what exactly is technical complication has not been explained or substantiated. Referring to paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in- opposition of the State respondents, she submits that the stand taken by the State respondents for having re-considered the criteria for fixation of seniority is due to technical complication. However, what exactly is technical complication has not been explained or substantiated. Therefore, there is no basis to review the advice given by the P&ARD on 27.09.2016. She further submits that the criteria for fixation of seniority has clearly been laid down by the State Government through O.M dated 09.06.1966 (Annexure-U) and thereafter, vide O.M dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure-U1). She submits that the said guideline is common for all the Departments under the Government of Nagaland and therefore, there cannot be a separate criteria for the NPWD. At any rate, she submits that there has to be a legal sanction to unsettle the earlier seniority list and not just technical complication as contended by the State respondents. She therefore submits that under the facts and circumstances, seniority list dated 26.03.2018 by which seniority was fixed from the date of upgradation and not from the date of regularization should be set aside and quashed and the respondent authorities directed to fixed a fresh seniority list of JEs from the date of regularization. 16. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents concerned in both the writ petitions submits that in the Rules of 1997 and all the subsequent amendments, there is no provision which provides for upgradation from S.O-I to J.E. Referring to the Communication dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure-H of WP(C) No. 264(K)/2018) by which, 38 posts of S.O-I manned by degree/diploma holders in Civil Engineering under the NPWD, were upgraded to the post of J.E and the upgradation was with immediate effect i.e w.e.f 01.05.2006. The petitioners did not raise any protest against the effective date of upgradation but gladly accepted the same. Therefore, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 264(K)/2018 are estopped from raising any grievance at this belated stage. He further submits that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 74(K)/2019, were also upgraded to the posts of J.E with immediate effect vide Communication dated 11.10.2007 and like the petitioners in WP(C) No. 264(K)/2018, they too accepted the effective date and are also estopped from raising any grievance at this belated stage. 17. The learned senior counsel submits that in respect of the private respondents in WP(C) No. 74(K)/2019 i.e., respondent Nos. 17. The learned senior counsel submits that in respect of the private respondents in WP(C) No. 74(K)/2019 i.e., respondent Nos. 6 to 17, they were directly recruited as JE against the 90 % quota. The respondent Nos. 18 & 20 were appointed on contract basis and subsequently regularized in service. The respondent No. 19 was given officiating promotion to the post of JE from S.O-I and subsequently, regularized. As for respondent Nos. 21 & 22, their contract service were regularized w.e.f 29.06.2007 i.e. the date of Cabinet approval. 18. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel referring to the seniority list as on 01.05.2004 annexed to the WP(C) No. 74/2019 as Annexure-E submits that in the said seniority list, the names of the petitioners did not even figure and therefore, they were not even born in the cadre as on 2004 and so, there cannot be any basis for counting seniority w.e.f 08.09.2001. Although the P&ARD rendered its advice on 27.09.2010 for fixing the seniority of all JEs already upgraded from the level of S.O-I with effect from the date of their regularization as S.O-I, the same was not accepted as a settled position in view of the fact that a number of JEs who are the private respondents herein had been directly recruited by the NPSC. They never served in the post of S.O-I and therefore, taking into account the anomaly in the criteria for fixing the seniority, the matter was re-examined by the P&ARD. He submits that the decision making process infact began with the constitution of a 5 (five) member committee to look into the inter se seniority list of JEs under the NPWD vide Notification dated 18.01.2016. The same culminated with the decision taken on 16.03.2018 by which, the recommendation of the meeting minutes dated 14.11.2017 was accepted. Under the circumstance, the learned senior counsel submits that it cannot be said that the State respondents in taking such decision has made a U-turn. 19. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were upgraded from S.O-I to JE. He submits that the post of S.O-I is a Grade-III post and as a Non-gazette post as well. As for the post of JE, the same is a Gazette post and a Class-II post. 19. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were upgraded from S.O-I to JE. He submits that the post of S.O-I is a Grade-III post and as a Non-gazette post as well. As for the post of JE, the same is a Gazette post and a Class-II post. Therefore, the process of re-designation is not merely a change of nomenclature but a movement from a lower post to a higher post. Therefore, the O.M dated 09.07.2004 as relied upon by the petitioners will only apply for regularization in the post of S.O-I and not for upgradation of post from S.O-I to J.E. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relies upon the Apex Court decision rendered in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510 and submits that a clear distinction has been drawn between upgradation and promotion. He submits that in respect of the latter, there has to be the presence of an element of selection. The learned senior counsel further refers to the Apex Court decision in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr vs State Of Assam & Ors, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 516 to contend that when there is an appointment on regular and irregular basis, the appointments made on irregular basis will have to give way to the appointments made on regular basis for fixation of seniority. He therefore submits that under the facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are without merit and the same should be dismissed. 20. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 40 in WP(C) No. 74/2019 submits that the said respondents was appointed on contract basis in the year 1994 and he was regularized in the month of July 1997 and thereafter promoted to the post of JE in the year 2002. He submits that the name of respondent No. 40 figures in the seniority list of 2004 when the petitioners were not even regularized in the post of S.O-I. He submits that respondent No. 40 is senior to all the petitioners and the other respondents and the petitioners having not challenge his absorption, upgradation and also the seniority list of 2004, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed even on these grounds alone. He submits that even otherwise there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. He submits that even otherwise there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. 21. Ms. S. Mere, learned State counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 12 & 4 submits that although tentative seniority list in the post of JE was fixed by taking to account the date of regularization in the post of S.O-I but later on, certain complications arose as there were many persons in the post of JE, who were directly appointed as such and had no occasion to serve as S.O-I. By adopting the criteria as advised by the P&ARD on 27.09.2016, the same resulted in unfairness as those who were upgraded from S.O-I to JE at a later point of time became senior to those who were directly appointed before upgradation. Accordingly, the matter was re-examined by the constituted committee in consultation with the P&ARD and consequently, it was decided that the date of upgradation should be the criteria for fixing the seniority. The same being fair and in the interest of all concerned, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and as such, the writ petitions being without merit, the same should be dismissed. The learned State counsel has also produce the relevant records. 22. I have heard the elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record. From what has been submitted, the issue to be decided is as to whether the interse-seniority of JEs should be counted from the date of regularization in the post of S.O-I or seniority has to be counted from the date of upgradation from the post of S.O-I to the post of JE. It may be noticed that the tentative seniority list prepared on 24.01.2012 was on the basis of counting seniority from the date of regularization as S.O-I. However, the issue relating to fixation of seniority could not be set at rest and therefore, the Department of W&H vide Notification dated 18.01.2016 constituted a 5 (five) member committee to look into the matter with the Addl. Secretary, Department of W&H as the Chairman. Secretary, Department of W&H as the Chairman. After much deliberation on the matter, the P&ARD came up with their conclusion on 27.09.2016 that seniority of JEs already upgraded from the level of S.O-I should be fixed from the dated of their regular appointment as S.O-I. Despite this, the issue on seniority could not be settled as representations were still being filed. Accordingly, the issue of seniority was again looked into by the W&H Department in consultation with the P&ARD. The meeting was held on 14.11.2017 in the office Chamber of the Commissioner & Secretary, W&H Department, wherein it was observed that if the date of regularization of S.O- I is taken as the reference for fixation of seniority in the post of JE, those directly recruited to the post of J.E became junior to those JEs, who are upgraded at a later stage. Moreover, the JEs who were recruited directly never figured in the level of S.O-I. Therefore, it was recommended that fixation of the seniority list from the date of upgradation would only be proper and most uniform. The observation and recommendation made in the said meeting was then placed before the P&ARD which accepted the same and advised initiation of necessary steps. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 19.03.2018 in the office Chamber of Commissioner & Secretary, Department of W&H wherein it was decided that seniority of JEs will be fixed on the basis of the date of upgradation to J.E as advised by the P&ARD vide their Communication dated 14.11.2017. Pursuant to the conclusion and advice, the seniority list of JEs was prepared and issued vide Memorandum dated 26.03.2018. 23. Going back to the observation and advise given by the P&ARD on 27.09.2016, it may be seen that according to the said Department, grave irregularities were committed by the Department of W&H by fixing the seniority of JEs from the date of regular appointment in the post of S.O-I and not from the date of regular appointment as JE. 23. Going back to the observation and advise given by the P&ARD on 27.09.2016, it may be seen that according to the said Department, grave irregularities were committed by the Department of W&H by fixing the seniority of JEs from the date of regular appointment in the post of S.O-I and not from the date of regular appointment as JE. While such was the finding, the department further observed that as many as 22 officials recruited through NPSC in the year 1998 were given seniority in the post of JE with effect from the date of their appointment as S.O-I and therefore, as more than 15 years had lapsed and in order to ensure that the principles of equality and fair play is followed, the P&RD advised fixation of seniority of all upgraded JEs with effect from the date of their regular appointment as S.O-I. Therefore, it can be seen that despite the disagreement about manner in which seniority had been fixed, the Department decided to follow the precedents for the sake of equal treatment and fair play. 24. The fact however remains that not all the JEs have been upgraded from the post of S.O-I. There are JEs, who have been directly recruited through the NPSC. There are also S.O- I who were initially appointed on contract/adhoc basis and subsequently regularized with the approval of the Cabinet and then upgraded to the post of JE. Facts which cannot be disputed is that the pay scale attached to S.O-I is Rs. 1450-2840 (pre-revised) and Rs. 4500-7000 (revised). The post is categorized as Class-III non-Gazette post. On the other hand, the pay scale attached to the post of JE is Rs. 1650-3475 (pre-revised) and Rs. 6000-9750 (revised) and the post is a Class-II Gazette post. Although the P&ARD while rendered their advice on 27.09.2016 has not dwelt upon the classification of the two posts, the fact remains that such factors cannot be over looked coupled with the fact that there are direct JE appointees. Therefore, to count the seniority in the post of JE from the date of regularization as S.O-I, does not appear to be the correct methodology. As already stated herein above, the P&ARD had also noticed grave irregularities in the manner in which the seniority list was being drawn but at the same opted to follow precedents. Therefore, to count the seniority in the post of JE from the date of regularization as S.O-I, does not appear to be the correct methodology. As already stated herein above, the P&ARD had also noticed grave irregularities in the manner in which the seniority list was being drawn but at the same opted to follow precedents. The same in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted and repeated inasmuch as, by giving seniority in the post of JE to those who were upgraded from the post of S.O-I w.e.f the date of regularization as S.O-I, it would mean give seniority to a person before he was even born in the cadre as JE. For the sake of repetition, besides, the distinction in the pay scale and the grade as already stated herein above, there are also direct the appointees in the post of JE, who never had the occasion to be in the post of S.O-I. Therefore, a S.O-I, who is upgraded to the post of JE after the appointment of direct JE appointee cannot be made senior by relating back his seniority from his regularization in S.O-I. Although much stress has been given to the fact that the P&ARD upon making a detail examination on the issue of fixation of seniority had rendered their advice on 27.09.2016 but such an argument is found to have no force. Firstly, because seniority list of JE are only tentative seniority list and has not been finalized till the seniority list dated 26.03.2018 was prepared. Secondly, the P&ARD itself was of the view that there was grave irregularities on the part of the Department of W&H for having fixed the seniority of JEs by taking the date of regularization in the post of S.O-I. 25. Upon consideration of the case in its entirety, the petitioners cannot be said to have legitimate grievances. Having come to such a conclusion, I find it unnecessary to dwell upon the authorities relied upon. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. It is however provided that promotions already made in the meantime to higher posts from the post of JE should not be disturbed. 26. The records produced by the learned State counsel be returned.