V. Shilpa vs The Chairman Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners, in the instant writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek the following reliefs:

"a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned final gradation list of Assistant Engineers (graduates) published by the 2nd Respondent vide Notification No. BWSSB/CAO-S/Sigo-8/3665 dated 2013-14 dated 26.12.13 issued by the 2nd Respondent vide ANNEXURE-L to the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances of this case;

b) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to re-do the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers [Graduates] by placing the Petitioners above the Respondents 3 to 11 in an appropriate place taking into consideration of their date of joining for duty and extend all other consequential benefits, under the facts and circumstances of this case."

The respondent-Chief Administrative Officer, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short "the Board") had invited applications for filling up 78 vacant posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by direct recruitment. It is not in dispute that applications were also invited for filling up vacant posts by direct recruitment in the cadre of Junior Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant Engineer (Computer Science) etc. In the present writ petitions we are concern with cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil). After selection, first selection list was prepared by the Board in which names of the petitioners only were figuring. In other words, in the first selection list, names of respondent Nos. 3 to 11 did not find place.

In this Court, Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 22937/2010 was filed by one R. Shilpa seeking direction to the Board to prepare additional list of 30% of the candidates as contemplated by clause (8)(xiv)(a) of Regulation in the Bangalore Water Supply and Water Sewerage Board Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Regulation 1981 (for short the "Regulations"). The writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 5th October 2010. The operative portion of the order in the said writ petition, reads thus:

"I) The Respondent - BWSSB is directed to prepare and publish the first consolidated list as contemplated by Regulation 8(xiv)(a), to include the names of candidates falling within the 30% margin of the number of existing vacancies to be filled up, forthwith.

II) The respondent is directed to operate that list for filing up of vacancies strictly in accordance with Regulation 8(xiv) and in accordance with the observations made supra in respect of selection to the post of Junior Assistant.

III) If, after operating the list there are vacancies to be filled up, to consider the case of the petitioner for filling up of such vacancy, in accordance with the Regulations."

This Court is informed that in view of the order dated 5th October 2010, the Board passed a resolution on 19.1.2011 and decided to prepare a fresh select list also in the cadre of Assistant Engineers. It is not in dispute that the seniority list impugned in the present writ petitions is the same list which was prepared, in view of the resolution dated 19.1.2011. Further, it is not in dispute that the fresh selection list was prepared in the light of the order of this Court dated 5th October 2010. In this list, respondents-3 to 11 were placed above the petitioners in view of the relevant clauses in the Regulations.

Mr. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the petitioners were appointed almost a year before the appointments of respondents and therefore, they ought to have been placed above the respondents in the final list of seniority on the basis of their date of appointment. Then, he invited my attention to Annexure-H dated 16.9.2011 which is the marginal candidate list and submitted that at the bottom of the said list it was made clear that seniority of the candidates is based on the marks scored in the selection and is applicable from the date of the order.

The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, deserve to be rejected outright. It is not in dispute that the final seniority list, impugned in the present writ petitions, was prepared as per the directions issued by this court in the order dated 5th October 2010 in Writ Petition No. 22937/2010, whereby select list was directed to be prepared as per Regulation 8(xiv)(a) and 16(a) of the Regulations. The relevant clause (xiv)(a) of the Regulations reads thus:

"(xiv) Preparation of approved list of candidate found suitable:-

(a) The Selection/Recruitment Committee shall after interviewing the candidates select those who are found suitable for appointment and shall prepare a first consolidated list, irrespective of class to which they belong, arranging them in the order of merit, keeping in view the number of existing vacancies to be filled with a margin of 30%"

(emphasis supplied)

Clause 16(a) of the Regulations reads thus:

"16 Seniority.

(a) The seniority of persons appointed by direct recruitment shall be in the order of merit in which the candidates are arranged in the approved list of candidates at the time of their first appointment."

(emphasis supplied)

Keeping in view the provisions contained in the aforementioned clauses and the order passed by this Court dated 5th October 2010 and the resolution of the Board dated 19.1.2011, it is clear that the first select list prepared by the Board was not in accordance with the regulations. In the first select list, names of respondent Nos. 3 to 11 did not figure since the list was defective/not prepared in the order of merits. In other words, the names of respondents-3 to 11 did not find place in the first selection list since it was not prepared in accordance with the Regulations. In any case for the error/mistakes committed by the Board, respondent Nos. 3 to 11 cannot be made to suffer. Now the Board has corrected its error and prepared the final list in the order of merit in view of the order of this Court. Clause 16(a) of the Regulations clearly provide that seniority of persons appointed by direct recruit shall be in the order of merit in which the candidates are arranged in the approved list of candidates at the time of their first appointment. Thus, I do not find anything wrong in the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers. That apart, it is not the petitioner''s case that they are more meritorious and therefore, they ought to have been placed above respondent Nos. 3 to 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly state that as far as merit is concerned, the placement of respondents-3 to 11 in the final seniority list is correct. The only ground on which the petitioners seek seniority over them is their date of appointment. This submission, as observed earlier, has no merit. The recruitment of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 11 was as a part of one and the same selection process. Names of respondent Nos. 3 to 11 did not find place in the first select list, since the said list, as observed earlier, was not prepared in accordance with the regulations. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. Petitions, accordingly, fail and dismissed, as such.