BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition involves a challenge to the seniority-list (Annexure P-5) by which the petitioners have been rendered junior to respondent Nos. 3 to 10 in the cadre of Assistants. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of Annexure P-5 and for restoration of their seniority as per Annexure P-1.

(2.) Petitioners Bhim Singh and Manohar Lal were appointed as Clerks in the offices of the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, and Ambala, respectively. Both of them were subsequently transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat. Before their transfer to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, Annexure P-7 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, to all Heads of Departments in Haryana State, all District & Sessions Judges and other Heads of District Offices calling upon the clerical staff of those offices to give their option for transfer and appointment under the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, against the vacant posts of Clerks numbering 40. Petitioners exercised their option in response to Annexure P-7 and thereafter orders (Annexures P-8 and P-9) were issued transferring them to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Assistant with effect from 2.2.1977 and petitioner No. 2 was promoted on that post with effect from 19.10.1979.

(3.) In the tentative seniority-list of Assistants issued by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, names of the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 4 and 7 and that of respondent No. 3 was shown at Serial No. 5. Other respondents were shown at Serial No. 10 and onwards. Thus, qua petitioner No. 1 all the private respondents were shown junior and qua petitioner No. 2 all except respondent No. 3 were shown junior. On the basis of this tenative seniority-list, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Superintendents vide order (Annexure P-2) dated 12.12.1990. On completion of one year's service as Assistant Superintendents by the petitioners, order (Annexure P-3) dated 1.4.1991 was issued declaring that the petitioners have successfully completed the period of probation. This was followed by a circular dated 12.2.1992, issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby a tentative seniority-list of Assistant Superintendents was circulated and names of the petitioners were placed at appropriate positions. After about 2 years and 10 months of their promotion as Assistant Superintendents, the respondent No. 2 issued another tenative seniority-list of Assistants in which names of the petitioners were placed below respondents Nos. 3 to 10. Petitioners submitted their representation. A final serniority list has been issued by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.2.1993. Immediately thereafter show-cause notices dated 26.2.1993 was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why they be not reverted from the posts of Assistant Superintendent.