Prabhu Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [a.m. ahmadi,; k. ramaswamy and; n. venkatachala, jj.] -- service law — seniority — criteria — length of service — antedating of appointment retrospectively and fixation of seniority accordingly — held on facts, invalid — appellant appointed as engineer assistant on 19-1-1967 by a verbal order — subsequently, a formal order issued on 17-2-1968 appointing him as engineer assistant — this order modified by an order dated 28-11-1969 treating appellant's appointment from 19-1-1967 to 16-2-1968 on work-charged basis but treating him to be appointed as engineer assistant from 19-1-1967 -- the appellant was appointed as engineer assistant on january 19, 1967 by the executive engineer of the concerned division. this claim of his was rejected by the high court. hence this appeal. the two respondents over whom the appellant claimed seniority were regularly appointed as engineer assistants whereas, admittedly, the appellant claims that he was appointed by the superintending engineer on the verbal orders of the chief engineer on january 19, 1967.a.m. ahmadi,; k. ramaswamy and; n. venkatachala, jj.1. the appellant was appointed as engineer assistant on january 19, 1967 by the executive engineer of the concerned division. subsequently, by an order dated february 17, 1968 he was appointed as engineer assistant by the chief engineer which order was modified on november 28, 1969 to read that the period of his appointment from january 19, 1967 to february 16, 1968 shall be treated on work-charge basis and his appointment will be treated as from january 19, 1967. on this basis, he claimed seniority over respondents 4 and 5. this claim of his was rejected by the high court. hence this appeal.2. we do not see any merit in this appeal. the two respondents over whom the appellant claimed seniority were regularly appointed as engineer assistants whereas, admittedly, the appellant claims that he was appointed by the superintending engineer on the verbal orders of the chief engineer on january 19, 1967. the high court has stated that there is nothing on the record to show that any such verbal order was given by the chief engineer. be that as it may, the fact remains that his entry was not in regular course and by the subsequent order of february 17, 1968 his entry could not have been regularised to the detriment of the two respondents who were regular appointees. the high court has, therefore, rightly observed that no such retrospective appointment could have been granted by the chief engineer affecting the rights of others and in particular respondents 4 and 5, regular appointees who were already working as such on the post of engineer assistants. the view taken by the high court is unassailable. hence the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.