(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Biren Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 03/10/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6436 of 1994. The appellant was appointed as a daily wager on 06/05/1986 and he joined on 14/05/1986. He was appointed as a Temporary Supervisor on 01/09/1990. The appellant challenged the Seniority List on the ground that his past services as daily wager should be counted. The respondents rejected the objection of the appellant challenging the Seniority List by order dated 04/03/1994, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in Para 7 has recorded the following findings:
“7.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents on record. It is found that by order dated 05.09.1990 passed by the respondent Commissioner, the petitioner was appointed as Temporary Supervisor on a permanent post in the pay scale of Rs. 500930 with effect from 01.09.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner has been confirmed as Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.16402900 by an order dated 26.04.1993 passed by the respondent Commissioner. It is also required to be noted that the respondent Commissioner had proposed to prepare common seniority list for the posts of Junior Engineer/Supervisor/Oversear/Estate Inspector and invited objections by an order dated 24.11.1993. The respondent Commissioner had asked the petitioner to produce evidence regarding the service treated as continuous service from 14.05.1986 to 31.09.1990. The petitioner has been assigned seniority looking to his date of temporary appointment of 01.09.1990 and no other evidence is available on records regarding the service of the petitioner being treated as continuous from 14.05.1986 to 31.09.1990. Further even if the seniority list is favourable to the petitioner his seniority will not be at Sr. No. 3 because the person who was at Sr. No. 3 in common seniority list was temporary supervisor as on 03.04.1986 whereas the date of the entry of the petitioner as Daily Wager was 14.05.1986. The entry of Mr. Rajendra G. Bhatt who was at Sr. No. 7 as temporary Supervisor was 06.05.1986. The petitioner was made Temporary Supervisor on 01.09.1990 and made permanent on 26.04.1993. In that view of matter, it is clear that the seniority list prepared by the respondent Commissioner is just and proper and the service of the petitioner cannot be considered as continuous service from 14.05.1986 to 31.03.1990. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.”
2. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the appointment on daily wages cannot be considered to be as continuous service. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in the appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed along with Civil Application.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren