NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22nd June, 1981 (Annexure P-3) and they have also prayed for a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to give effect to the aforesaid order.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Nirmal Singh, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Clerk on ad hoc basis on 6th July, 1967 and Gurnam Singh (Petitioner No. 2) was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 28th February, 1968. As per averments made in the writ petition, the name of petitioner No. 1 was sent by the Employment Exchange along with certain other persons and petitioner No. 2 was promoted. The proposed seniority list (Annexure P-1) was circulated on 7th December, 1978 and the petitioners were shown to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from 1st March, 1969. They were, however, shown senior to the private respondents in that provisional seniority list. Vide Annexure P-2, dated 27th July, 1979, another provisional seniority list of Clerks was circulated and in this list, both the petitioners were shown senior to the private respondents. In this circular letter, it was further stated that any official feeling aggrieved by the same, might submit his objections within one month. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 had submitted their representations against the seniority list (Annexure P-2) but the said representations were rejected by the Director, Public Instruction, Punjab. According to the petitioners, the seniority list (Annexure P-2) had thus become final. Thereafter another seniority list dated 22nd June, 1981 (Annexure P-3) was circulated and in that seniority list both the petitioners were shown junior to all the private respondents. In this circular letter, it was specifically stated that pursuant to the acceptance of the appeal of Sarvshri Som Nath Gupta etc. against the seniority of Sarvshri Nirmal Singh and Gurnam Singh (Petitioners herein), it was decided that those employees whose names had been recommended by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board prior to 3rd March, 1969 would be senior to those employees whose service had been regularised from 3rd March, 1969. Since the services of the petitioners were regularised from 3rd March, 1969 and the names of the private respondents had been recommended by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board prior to 3rd March, 1969, the names of the private respondents were shown senior to the petitioners in the seniority list, Annexure P-3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid seniority list (Annexure P-3) the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) In reply to the writ petition, separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2; respondents Nos. 3 to 6, 9 and 10 to 13; and respondents Nos. 14 and 15, respectively.