INDERJIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for adjudication in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to be placed above the non-official respondents in the inter se seniority of Inspectors, Cooperative Department

(2.) There is no dispute between the parties that the appellants who were serving as Sub Inspectors were appointed as Inspectors by selection in the year 1970. The respondents No. 3 to 44 were directly recruited as Inspectors w.e.f. 22.3.1971. Likewise, the respondents No. 45 to 116 were appointed as Inspectors on 25.7.1974 by direct recruitment. In the seniority list circulated by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab along with circular letter No. Adm/EAI/VI-15/20558-98 dated 9.6.1976, the appellants-petitioners were shown below the respondents. They challenged the legality of the seniority list by filing C.W.P. No. 7334 of 1976 by contending that Rule 6 of the.Punjab Co-operative Subordinate Service Rules, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1936) under which the seniority list was determined as ultra vires to the Constitution and that the seniority should be assigned by the basis of total length of service keeping in view the ratio of 2:1 between the promotees and direct recruits. The learned Single Judge rejected the plea of the appellants by observing that the respondents had undergone training under Rule 5 of the 1936 Rules earlier than the appellants and, therefore, they were rightly shown senior to the appellants. He further held that the discretion vested in the Registrar has not been misused or exercised in an arbitrary manner. The learned Single Judge also held that the possibility of misuse of the rules cannot be a ground to strike down the same.

(3.) Shri P.S. Patwalia challenged the order dated 2.3.1984 mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not properly examined the issues raised by the appellants about the constitutional validity of Rule 6 of the 1936 Rules. He submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from an error of law, inasmuch as he failed to consider the fact that the criteria for determination of seniority depended on a wholly fortuitous I factor, namely, the date of passing of departmental examination. Learned counsel pointed out that the Rules of 1936 are totally silent about the method which the Registrar the competent authority was required to adopt for deputing the candidates for training and it was left to the unbridled discretion of the concerned authority to depute any member of the service for training. Learned counsel submitted that the factum of the respondents for acquiring training earlier than the appellants could not have been made basis for treating them senior to the appellants irrespective of the fact that they had joined service as regular Inspectors prior to the respondents. Shri Rupinder Khosla and Shri R.L. Sharma supported the order of the learned Single Judge and argued that the appellants cannot seek invalidation of the seniority after the promulgation of the Punjab State Co-operative Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Rules). Shri Sharma also submitted that the seniority has been prepared by the department strictly in accordance with the ratio in which the recruitment had been made and, therefore, the appellants cannot make any grievance against their placement in the seniority list. Learned counsel also argued that the appellants cannot take advantage of their prior selection because the respondent No. 2 had not made recruitment in accordance with the quota of I 67:33.