SURESH KUMAR MANGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question of law raised in this petition filed by the promotees under Article 226 of the Constitution is should the seniority of members of Haryana Civil Medical (Group -A) Service be governed on the principle of continuous length of service as per the provisions of Rule 11 of the Haryana Civil Medical (Group -A) Service Rules, 1981 (for brevity "the Rules") or by the instruction dated 24th November, 1962 which provide that date of recommendation in respect of direct recruits by the Public Service Commission be regarded as determinative date for fixing their inter se seniority. The Petitioners have prayed that order dated 1st December, 2006 (P -15) passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Health be quashed which seeks to follow the principle of determining seniority from the date of recommendation of the Haryana Public Service Commission as per the instructions dated 24th November, 1962.

(2.) FACTS are beyond any pale of controversy. The Petitioners were promoted as H.C.M.S. Class -I in the service known as H.C.M.S. (Group -A) on 21st June, 1996 from the post of Medical Officers (P -1). The private Respondents who are direct recruit to the service were recommended for appointment on 20th June, 1996. All of them however were appointed to the service much later. One appointment letter to a private Respondent has been placed on record (P -2) which is dated 13th July, 1996. The Petitioners have claimed that the private Respondents having been appointed subsequent to the date of their promotion, therefore they would rank senior to them as the continuous length of service is the principle laid down in Rule 11 of the Rules. In all the seniority list issued from time to time the Petitioners have always been shown senior to private Respondents. In that regard, the Petitioners have placed reliance on the seniority list dated 1st September, 1997, 1st June, 2000 and 1st September, 2003 (P -3 to P -5). The seniority list has been drawn on the basis of Rule 11 of the Rules. The seniority lists have also been followed because many promotees being senior to private Respondents were further promoted or given charge of the post of Civil Surgeon, P.M.O. Deputy Director.

(3.) THE Respondent -State has filed written statement. The broad facts have been admitted but it has made an attempt to defend the determination of seniority on the principle laid down in the instructions dated 24th November, 1962 (P -16). It has also been asserted in Para 6 of the written statement that merit fixed by the Public Service Commission should not be disturbed and the seniority must be fixed from the date of recommendation by the Public Service Commission and the objections have been rightly rejected.