P S GHALAUT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The undisputed facts are that the appellant as a general candidate and the third respondent. Dr. Nitya Anand to backward class quota were selected for appointment as lecturer in the Haryana Medical Education Service as per H.M.E.S. Rules, 1965 (for short Rs. the Rules'). The Public Service Commission recommended the names of the appellant and Dr. Nitya Anand along with three other candidates for appointment as lecturers. It would appear that Dr. Diwakar Jain and Dr. Sidharth Dass had not joined the service. Though Dr. Om Prakash Kalra initially had joined the service, he too left the service. Consequently the appellant, as general candidate and Dr. Nitya Anand remained in service.

(3.) The question is whether the appellant is senior to Nitya Anand. The contention of the appellant is that since the order of merit given by the Selection Committee and the letter of appointment do indicate that the appellant is high up in the order of merit to Dr. Nitya Anand, he is senior to the later. While maintaining inter se seniority by wrong interpretation Dr. Nitya Anand has been made senior to the appellant which is contrary to the IInd proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules. This contention was not accepted by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated May 3, 1993 in Civil W.P.No.4946/93 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary, dated April 27, 1972 and the judgment of the Division Bench of that Court in Bhupinder Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation in Civil W.P. No.2006/92 dated June 2, 1992 contended that when the Selection Committee had mentioned inter se seniority in the order of merit, the State has no power to interfere with the inter se seniority. The same seniority shall be continued to be maintained while fixing inter se seniority after the appointment given to the respective candidates. The High Court therefore, was not right in upholding the action of the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents have resisted the contention.