MEGH RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 6542 of 2007, 6543 of 2007, 6857 of 2007 and 686 of 2008, which raise common questions of law, touching the legality of the seniority-list finalized and circulated by the State Government by its orders dated 4.4.2007 and 13.4.2007 respectively. The dispute primarily relates to the determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees appointed by a process of nomination and selection. The petitioners, who happen to be promotee officers, appointed by nomination from various Registers, maintained under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, are dissatisfied with the norms adopted for determination of their inter se seniority vis-a-vis, the respondents, who happen to be direct recruits. The dispute and the resultant litigation has a chequered history. It all started as early as on 18.3.1993, when a final seniority list of Officers appointed upto the year 1985 was finalized and circulated by the Government. The petitioner-promotee officers were in that list and the list that was circulated subsequently on 1.7.1994 regarding direct recruits of 1986 batch, placed above the respondent-direct recruits. Aggrieved by the said placement the direct recruits filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16516 of 1995, inter alia, contending that the determination of the seniority ought to be strictly as per the roster provided in Rules 18 and 21 of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), Rules, 1976. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by an order dated 8.12.1999, holding that Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned above, only provided for the roster for appointment and did not regulate the fixation of the seniority. The learned Single Judge noted that the seniority of those appointed under the said Rules was to be determined by reference to Rule 21 of the Rules having regard to the date of appointment, which implied the date of actual appointment and not necessarily the order in which appointments were made under Rule 18.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, the direct recruits preferred LPA No. 1705 of 2000 which failed and was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.12.2000. Against the said order, the direct recruits filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C.A. No. 6373 of 2001 titled Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab, 2006 3 SCT 126 which was eventually disposed of by an order dated 24.5.2006. After a review of the case law on the subject as also the service Rules regulating the service conditions of those in Punjab Civil Services their Lordships came to the conclusion that the seniority of Officers recruited to the service from different Registers had to be determined as per the order prescribed in Rule 18 read with Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Class-I, Rules 1976. This would, declared their Lordships, imply that the seniority will have to be as per the Roster allocated to each Register maintained under the said Rules. Having said so, the seniority-lists earlier circulated by the Government were set aside and the matter remitted back to the Government for preparation of a composite fresh seniority-list assigning positions to the direct recruits and the promotees with consequential benefits, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.

(3.) In obedience to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government issued a tentative seniority list dated 15.12.2006 in which it placed the direct recruits and the promotees as per the Roster points stipulated under Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned above. The petitioners, so also others were dissatisfied with that placement, to which they filed objections, which were examined by the Government but turned down by an order dated 4.4.2007 culminating in the circulation of final seniority list on 13.4.2007 impugned in the present petitions.