MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service as a teacher in the Education Department in Patiala Division on November 18, 1953. On December 24, 1959 the petitioner was granted a special certificate for Primary Department whereby the petitioner become competent to teach all the subjects in the Primary classes with or without English. On September, 10, 1962, vide order of the Director, Public Instruction, Punjab, the said certificate i.e., the Teacher's Special Certificate, was validated from March, 1, 1959 and an entry to that effect was made in the Certificate. A true copy of the said certificate is Annexure P-1. The petitioner was confirmed as a JBT Teacher in the Education Department Service Class III of the Patiala Division in the time scale of Rs. 60-120 with effect from December 24, 1960. The seniority list was prepared in the year 1977. Objections were invited and the final seniority list was prepared in the year 1979 in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 46-A. Later on February 18, 1982, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the Deputy District Education Officer as to why in the seniority list his name should not be shown at serial No. 146-A. Reply to the said show-cause notice was given by the petitioner and the department vide copy Annexure P-10, issued provisional seniority list in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 146-A. He has challenged the said seniority list by way of this writ petition inter alia on the ground that the persons who were confirmed in the service later than the petitioner have been shown senior to him and, therefore, the seniority list was liable to be quashed. One of such instances given was that of one Didar Singh who is shown at serial No. 49 in the seniority list, copy, Annexure P-8/T, who was confirmed in service on December 2, 1971, vide copy, Annexure P-2, but has been shown senior to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the seniority of the members of the service who are governed by the Punjab Education Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955, is to be determined by the dates of their confirmation on such posts which according to the petitioner, have been violated in the present case. In the return filed on behalf of the State, the stand taken in paragraph 9 is that the seniority of the teachers in Ludhiana District was determined in view of their dates of confirmation irrespective whether they came from Patiala District or Ludhiana district whereas in paragraph 11, it is stated that the seniority of the petitioner in Ludhiana has been fixed on the basis of the seniority Nos. received with other seniority Nos. teachers working in Payal Tehsil which was merged with Ludhiana District. The teachers were senior to the petitioner in Patiala District were shown senior to him in Ludhiana District and the teachers who were junior to him in Patiala District were shown junior in Ludhiana District while refixing the seniority. Prima facie, the stand taken in paragraph 9 and 11 is contradictory. The learned counsel for the State was unable to reconcile the stand taken in the return.

(2.) Consequently, it is directed that the question of seniority of the petitioner be reconsidered by the department concerned and a speaking order be passed to that effect within three months from today. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.