LAWS(P&H)-1995-3-169

SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 24, 1995
PARAMJIT KAUR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In those two writ petitions, viz. C.W.P. Nos. 13373 and 14660 of 1994, the dispute is regarding inter se seniority of two officials namely Paramjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') and Sudesh Kumari (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'). A few facts, as admitted by both the parties may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On December 20, 1975, the Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training sent requisition for recruitment of 14 Clerks/Typists to the Subordinate Services Selection Board. A competitive selection was conducted by the Board. The petitioner and the respondent completed. The petitioner was placed at No.348 while the respondent was placed at No.213 in the merit list prepared by the Board. In pursuance to the selection, the Board sent its recommendations to different departments including the Directorate of Technical Education vide its letter dated September 3, 1976. So far as the petitioner is concerned, her name was forwarded to Respondent No.2. However in spite of the fact that respondent Sudesh Kumari was working in the Directorate of Technical Education on ad hoc basis since May 20, 1976, the Board forwarded her name to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Apprehending this, the respondent had already submitted two representations dated June 10, 1976 and August 16, 1976, copies of which have been produced as Annexures R.5/1 and R.5/2 with the written statement to Respondent No.2 and the Board respectively. It appears that initially vide letter dated December 20, 1976, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4, the Board recommended the name of respondent No.5 to respondent No.2. After about two and half months, respondent No.2 issued a letter of appointment to Respondent No.5 in pursuance of which she joined on the same date and was treated as a regular Clerk. Thereafter, the Directorate of Technical Education circulated a tentative seniority list of Clerks on May 7, 1977. In this list, the petitioner's name appeared at Sr. No.79 while that of respondent No.5 was shown at Sr. No.81. In the office order by which this list was circulated it was were appointed as Clerks after 1.11.1966, have been assigned seniority on the basis of the merit intimated by the Subordinate Services Selection Board/any other recruiting agency or from the date of their appointment on regular basis in the cadre at Headquarters or from the date of their joining the cadre on account of transfer from the other cadre/office." Since the inter se seniority was stated to have been determined on the basis of the inter se merit as conveyed by the Board, the respondent did not represent against it. As a result, even in the final seniority list issued on March 17, 1978, the position as shown in the tentative seniority list was reflected. Another seniority list was issued on February 6, 1981. A copy of this has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition. In this list also, the petitioner's name appeared above that of respondent No.5. Resultandy, the respondent was treated as junior to the petitioner.

(3.) The department conducted a test for promotion of Clerks to the post of Senior Assistants. The petitioner and Respondent No.5 appeared in tins test. Their result was declared on March 14, 1987. Both of them qualified the test. On the availability of the leave vacancies of Assistant, the petitioner and the respondent were promoted vide order dated July 27, 1990. However, on August 17, 1990 respondent No.5 submitted a representation claiming seniority above the petitioner. A copy of dus representation has been produced as Annexure P-12 with the writ petition. In this representation, it was claimed by her that she was senior to Smt.Paramjit Kaur as she was placed at No.213 in the merit list drawn by the Board while Smt. Paramjit Kaur had been placed at No.348. She also pointed out that she had been working in the Directorate of Technical Education since May 20, 1976, on ad hoc basis and that her name had been wrongly forwarded by the Board to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Relying on the instructions issued by the State Government vide letter dated March 15, 1962, she claimed that she should be treated as senior to Smt. Paramjit Kaur. However, before this representation could be decided a regular vacancy in the cadre of Assistant became available on account of the retirement of one Mr. M.M. Khanna who was working as Superintendent, Grade-I. Since the representation submitted by Respondent No.5 had not been decided, the department adjusted the petitioner against the regular post. Ultimately vide order dated October 24, 1991, the department accepted the representation of respondent No.5 and declared her senior to the petitioner. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.16 with the writ petition. The petitioner represented against this order. However, vide order dated September 14, 1994, the petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 were reverted from the post of Senior Assistant to that of Senior Clerk. It may be mentioned tiiat the post of Assistant has been re-designated as Senior Assistant by the Government. As a resultRespondent No.5 has filed a Civil Writ Petition No.13373/94 impugning the order dated September 14, 1994, by which she has been ordered to be reverted from the post of Senior Assistant to that of Senior Clerk. The petitioner has filed C.W.P. No.14660 of 1994 to impugn the order, dated October 24, 1991 by which she was declared junior to Respondent No.5 and the order Dated September 14, 1994 by which she was ordered to be reverted. A challenge has also been levelled against the instructions issued by the Government vide its letter dated March 15, 1962. These are the facts. It is in the background of this factual position that the dispute regarding the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Respondent No.5 has to be settled.