PREM SWAROOP GAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined as Veterinary Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department of erstwhile Government of Punjab now Haryana on regular basis w.e.f. 26.9.1963. He was appointed to Class -II service w.e.f. 23.3.1975 by way of direct recruitment upon the recommendation of the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"). The petitioner did hold the charge of Class -I post intermittendly though not having been promoted regularly to Class -1 service. The petitioner was appointed to the Class -1 service known as HVS Class -1 upon the recommendation of the Commission vide appointment letter dated 20.3.1979, copy Annexure PI.

(2.) THE service conditions of the members of Class -I service are governed under the statutory rules known as the Provincial Veterinary Service (Class -1) Rules, 1930 but the said rules were subsequently repealed by virtue of the new rules which were promulgated in 1995. The case of the petitioner continued to be governed under the 1930 Rules and not 1995 Rules as he had been appointed to Class -1 service much prior to 1995. The petitioner held the post of Deputy Director and thereafter Joint Director after having been appointed in Class -I service. The next promotion from the rank of Joint Director is that of Director, Animal Husbandry. So far as appointment of the petitioner to Class -I service is concerned, the same is not in dispute and admittedly, he is a direct appointee to Class -1 Service and successfully completed the probation period and was thereafter appointed substantively in the said service.

(3.) MR . Ashok Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, has stated that the seniority list has been drawn while keeping into consideration the length of service as has been observed by this Court in CVVP No. 382 of 1991 and while calculating the length of service ad hoc/temporary service had also been counted and the dates were recorded accordingly. The appointment to Class -I service, so far as petitioner is concerned, he has not been given the benefit from March 1979 i.e. the date on which he had been inducted by way of direct recruit to Class -1 service but has been given the date i.e. April 4, 1978. It has been further contended that the impugned seniority list which had been finalised vide order dated 26.7.1999 was duly finalised after giving full opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner.