NAVNEET WALIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court impugning orders dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P -18) and orders dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P -19) and 16.11.2010 (Annexure P -20, which is the final seniority list) which are orders passed in pursuance to the order dated 11.11.2010. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P -18) is not in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the seniority of the petitioner. He contends that the service of the petitioner as well as the private respondents is governed by the Punjab Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Wing) Group -A Service Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as '2001 Rules'). Rule 9 of the said Rules lays down that in respect of matters, which are not specifically provided in these Rules, the members of the service shall be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as '1994 Rules'). There is no specific rule in the 2001 Rules, which would determine the seniority of the members of the service. Rule 8, therefore, of the 1994 Rules would govern the seniority of the members of the service. According to this Rule, the inter se seniority of the persons appointed to posts in each cadre of a service is to be determined by the length of continuous service on such posts in that cadre of the service. Although provisos are there to the said Rules but the same would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner and the private respondents belong to different cadre and these provisos would not be applicable to determine the seniority inter se for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondents dated 26.08.1995, applied for the post of Lecturer in Commercial and Secretarial Practice. He was duly selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission and his name was recommended on 25.01.1996. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 25.03.1996 (Annexure P -4) and on the basis of the said appointment letter issued to the petitioner, he joined service. Respondents No. 4 and 5 applied in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 19.11.1994 (Annexure P -1). Recommendations, after their selection, were made by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 05.12.1995 and they were issued appointment letters on 10.07.1996 (Annexure P -2). In pursuance thereto, they joined service subsequent to the date of joining of the petitioner. He, on the basis of this, contends that even if Rule 8 is made applicable to the claim of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 for the purpose of determining seniority for promotion, the length of continuous service would be the determinative factor and since the petitioner has longer service than respondents No. 4 and 5, he is bound to be declared as senior. He, accordingly, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) COUNSEL for the private respondents also have made the same submissions as the counsel for the State.