PUSHPINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed as JBT teachers in various schools run by the District Boards/Local Bodies in District Ferozepur. Their services were provincialised w.e.f. October 1, 1957. Some time later, the rules called 'The Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre Class III) Rules, 1961' were promulgated. These rules embody the conditions of service governing the members of the provincialised cadre. The petitioners claim that their seniority has to be determined inter alia under the provisions of Rule 9 on the basis of ''the length of continuous service whether temporary, officiating or permanent in equated posts as on the Ist of October, 1957.'' The seniority of the petitioners was actually fixed in accordance with these rules and further promotions were accordingly made. Certain JBT teachers belonging to the State Cadre which is distinct and different from the provincialised cadre filed CWP No. 2638 of 1977. This writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with direction that the seniority should be fixed in accordance with the provisions governing the members of the State Cadre viz. the Punjab Educational Service Cadre III (Schools Cadre) Rules, 1955. Thereafter, certain teachers who belonged to the provincialised cadre filed CWP No. 2240 of 1978. They also placed reliance on the provisions of the 1955 Rules. No reply was filed by the respondents in the writ petition no June 1, 1978, the Bench disposed of the writ petition with the following order:-

(2.) In pursuance of the order passed by the Bench of June 1, 1978, the department framed a tentative seniority list of the members of the provincialised cadre. It was circulated vide endorsement dated February 11, 1982. Objections were invited. The petitioners filed objections against the tentative seniority list. They claimed that they were governed by the provisions of 1961 rules. Copy of the objections filed by one of the petitioners has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. Vide letter dated March 18, 1982, four out of the petitioners were called upon to disclose their dates of confirmation. Thereafter, vide letter dated April 21, 1982, the petitioners were informed that their representation against tentative seniority list had been rejected in view of the fact that according to the decision of the High Court, the seniority list had to be prepared in accordance with the orders of the High Court. Aggrieved by the rejections of the objections, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Their whole claim is that the seniority has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 rules and that the provisions of the 1955 rules are not applicable to them. The petitioners claim that their objections have been wrongly rejected by the department without passing any speaking order. Consequently, the petitioners pray that the seniority list, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 and the order by which the objections filed by them have been rejected, be set aside. They further pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to determine their inter se seniority in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 rules.

(3.) On behalf of the department, a short written statement has been filed by the Deputy District Education Officer, Ferozepur. It has been admitted that the provisions of 1955 Rules are not applicable to the petitioners. It has been further admitted that the petitioners in CWP No. 2638 of 1977 belonged to the Government schools and their service conditions were governed by the provisions of 1955 rules. However, the petitioners in CWP No. 2240 of 1978 were governed by the provisions of 1961 Rules as they were the members of the provincialised cadre. It has been stated that the seniority list was prepared in pursuance of the judgment in CWP No. 2240 of 1973.