MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were selected as Patwaris by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'the Board') in District Jalandhar in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Board. One such letter of appointment dated 11.1.1982 has been appended as Annexure P-2 to the petition. On 6.8.1982, respondent No. 2 i.e. the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, took a decision transferring the petitioners and other patwaris to other Districts and consequent thereto, the petitioners were transferred to District Hoshiarpur and they joined their duties on transfer on 19/20.8.1982. Respondents No. 5 to 139 were appointed as Patwaris in District Hoshiarpur on ad hoc basis on 23.12.1981 on the basis of letters of appointments of even date and in paragraph 1 of the letter of appointment, it was specifically noted that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till candidates recommended for regular appointment whichever was earlier, were made available and it was further stipulated that their services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. It is the petitioners' case that the services of each of these respondents were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1985 as per Govt. notification dated 29.3.1985 subject to various conditions; condition No. 3 stipulating that he must have been recruited through an Employment Exchange or by an open advertisement and condition No. 8 providing that amongst such persons, the inter se seniority would be maintained and that they would rank junior to all those working on a regular basis. Pursuant to the aforesaid conditions, respondent No. 3 i.e. the Collector Hoshiarpur vide order dated 7.3.1986 Annexure P.4 to the petition regularised the services of the respondents, w.e.f. 1.4.1985. A tentative seniority list dated 2.11.1987 was, thereafter, issued and objections were invited from such persons who were likely to be affected thereby. Petitioner No. 1 aforesaid took objection to the list vide Annexure P-5. It is the petitioners, case that while the objections were still pending, respondent No. 3 issued a final seniority list Annexure P-6, determining the seniority w.e.f. 31.3.1988 in which the petitioners were shown junior to the private respondents. It is further the petitioners' case that the list Annexure P-6 was never circulated within the service and it was only in August 1993 that the petitioners became aware of the same and, accordingly, on 14.9.1993 filed set of fresh objections; a copy thereof being Annexure P-7 to the petition. It appears that no action was taken on this representation as well, which led to the filing of reminders Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-10. Finding that there was still no action being taken on the part of the State Government, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 15215 of 1994 in this Court and vide order dated 18.10.1995, a Division Bench directed that the representation filed by the petitioners be disposed of within three months from that date after affording a hearing to all those likely to be affected. As a direction had also been given to the petitioners by the aforesaid order to make a fresh representation, Annexure P-11, another detailed representation was, thereafter, filed. The Collector, Hoshiarpur, considered the representation and vide order dated 17.1.1996 Annexure P-12 to the petition, rejected the same, observing that the private respondents were entitled to count their period of ad hoc service for the determination of their seniority, and as they had been appointed on ad hoc basis on 23.12.1981 whereas the petitioners had been appointed on a temporary basis thereafter, the respondents were deemed to be senior to the petitioners. The order Annexure P-12 has been impugned in the present proceedings.

(2.) The petitioners' primary grievance is that as the private respondents had not been selected for appointment as Patwaris under the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Clause (3), Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), they were not entitled to count the period of their ad hoc service for the purpose of the determination of their seniority. Contrarily, it has been pleaded that as the petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, though initially on a temporary basis, they were deemed to have entered service on the date of their initial appointments, as they too had been confirmed in service in the meanwhile.

(3.) On notice of motion, various replies have been filed by the respondents. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 i.e. the State Government, it has been admitted, that the private respondents had not been appointed through the S.S.S. Board, but had, in fact, been appointed under the procedure set out in the instructions dated 14.10.1981 Annexure R-1 to the reply, issued by the State Government in order to fill in the vacant posts which was an immediate and dire need. It has further been pleaded that the appointments in question had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. It has further been highlighted that the seniority list referred to above, had been circulated through the Patwari unions as also through the respective Tehsildars and as such, the plea of ignorance taken by the petitioners was an effort to cover up the delay in coming to the Court or even approaching the Collector concerned. It has also been pleaded that representations dated 28.2.1994, 11.5.1994 and 26.6.1994 had not been received in the department and the averments to that effect were an attempt at covering up the delay in seeking the redressal of their grievance.