WP(C) 4767/2007 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioners, who are holding the ex-cadre post of Assistant Enginee r are apprehensive of adverse consequences in their service prospects in the ev ent of promoting their juniors in the cadre of Junior Engineer against the regul ar post of Assistant Engineer. The Eight petitioners joined services of the Pub lic Health Engineering Department during the period from 1979 to 1983. Their nex t promotion is to the post of Assistant Engineer. In the year 1995, some Junior Engineers were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer excluding the petitio ners. It was only in the year 2006, the petitioners along with many others, were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (ex-cadre). According to the petiti oners, they are the senior most Junior Engineers. However, they are apprehensi ve of adverse consequences in their service prospects in view of the fact that they have been promoted against the ex-cadre post. In this connection, the pe titioners have referred to Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 communications dated 31.7 .2006 and 7.11.2006, by which the petitioners were sought to be placed under d ifferent footing in view of the fact that they are holding ex-cadre posts of Ass istant Engineer. 2. According to the petitioners, as per the normal practice and procedure, they should be first adjusted against the regular post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter, their cases for promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant E xecutive Engineer should be considered. In this connection, they have referred to Annexure-9 notification dated 16.10.2006 pertaining to Agriculture Department . By the said order, the Junior Engineers, who were allowed to hold the ex-cadr e post of Assistant Engineer, were given regular promotion against regular post. Drawing analogy with the notification dated 16.10.2006, it is the case of the p etitioners that as per the practice and procedure in various Government depart ments, the petitioners are also required to be adjusted against regular posts of Assistant Engineer. 3. The occasion for the petitioners to approach this Court by filing the in stant writ petition arose when the Government decided to fill up 15 number of p romotional posts of Assistant Engineer from amongst the Junior Engineers occupyi ng the position at Sl. No.98 onwards. Admittedly, the petitioners were immedia te seniors to the said incumbents before they were brought to the cadre of Assi stant Engineer (ex-cadre). Thus, it is the apprehension of the petitioners that once their juniors are promoted against regular posts of Assistant Engineer, in the matter of promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Executive Enginee r, they would be deprived being holders of ex-cadre posts of Assistant Engineer . 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have filed this wr it petition making a challenge to the Annexure-8 and 10 letters dated 12.10.2006 and 13.6.2007 by which the proposal was made for promoting the Junior Engineer s to the regular posts of Assistant Engineer. This Court while entertaining the writ petition granted interim protection by way of providing that no promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (normal cadre) would be made without consideri ng the case of the petitioners. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, no clear cut s tand is discernible. In one hand, it has been stated that the petitioners need not be apprehensive inasmuch as they are already in the cadre of Assistant Eng ineer and thus, not connected with the promotion of the Junior Engineers to the cadre of Assistant Engineer. The stand of the respondents is that the petition ers’ next promotion being to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, the prom otion of the Junior Engineers to the cadre of Assistant Engineer (normal cadre) does not have any bearing. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that there being no challenge to the Rule, the petitioners are not en titled to any relief. The counter affidavit does not deal with the real apprehe nsion of the petitioners . It also does not deal with the plea of the petitioner s that as per the practice and procedure being followed in the Government depar tments, the Assistant Engineers holding the ex-cadre posts are first brought to the normal cadre of Assistant Engineer and thereafter, considered for promotion to the next higher grade. 6. It will be iniquitous for the Junior Engineers who are admittedly junior to the petitioners, if promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (normal cadre ) and thereafter, they are again considered for further promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer without considering the case of the petitioners merely because, for no fault of their own, they were provided with promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (ex-cadre). In the matter of promotion to the po st of Assistant Engineer (normal cadre), same will have to be considered as per the seniority position. It cannot be a case that after pushing out the petition ers to the ex-cadre posts of Assistant Engineer, their erstwhile juniors in the cadre of Junior Engineers would be promoted to the regular cadre of Assistant E ngineer and thereafter, would also be considered for further promotion to the deprivation of the petitioners. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed directing the respon dents to consider the case of the petitioners in the following manner :- 1) If the promotion of the Junior Engineers to the regular cadre of Assista nt Engineer, as has been proposed by the impugned notifications, has got nothing to do with the promotion prospects of the petitioners to the next higher grade of Assistant Executive Engineer, same shall be made known by passing an order. 2) If the proposed promotion of the Junior Engineers to the regular cadre o f Assistant Engineer has the effect of bypassing the petitioners, who are sen ior to them, the respondents shall first consider the case of the petitioners fo r promotion/adjustment in the regular cadre of Assistant Engineer before conside ring the case of the erstwhile juniors in the cadre of Junior Engineer. 3) If need be, the respondents shall also think of bringing the amendment to the recruitment rules. In other words, there must not be any adverse conseque nce to the service prospects of the petitioners in the event of promoting the Ju nior Engineers to the regular cadre of Assistant Engineers, who are admittedly j unior to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Engineers. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent in dicated above.