KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the impugned order of January 1986 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepure Division setting aside the final seniority list of Patwaris made by the District Collector, Bhatinda vide his order dated 17-12-1980 on the grounds that the final seniority list prepared by the District Collector after hearing and deciding the objections filed by the Patwaris was prepared on the basis of continuous service rendered as Revenue Patwari by all the Patwaris shown in the list Anne-ure- P-1. This list has been set aside by the Commissioner vide his order Anne-ure- P-2 which has caused prejudice to the petitioners. No opportunity was given to the petitioners before passing Anne-ure- P-2. Giving the earlier history leading to the filing of this petition it is mentioned that S/Shri Sita Ram, Shanti Parkash, Pyare Lal and Atma Ram who were shown in the final seniority list at serial Nos. 108, 106, 91 and 117 were initially appointed as Revenue Patwaris in District Bhatinda and were trained Revenue Patwari candidates. They were later on transferred to the Consolidation Department and subsequently absorbed in the Revenue Department in that District. They challenged the seniority list dated 17-12-1980 qua their rights in the Civil Court at Bhatinda. However, all the Revenue Patwari candidates in the District were not impleaded as parties. Petitioners 3, 11, 14 to 27, 35 and 36 were also not impleaded as parties. The said suit was decreed by the Civil Court on Oct. 29, 1983 vide its judgment Anne-ure-P-3.

(2.) It is further mentioned that services of a number of persons working in Consolidation Department became surplus in that department and they were retrenched therefrom but taking sympathetic view the State authorities absorbed those retrenched employees in the Revenue Department. These innumerable retrenched employees are said to have been working in Consolidation Department otherwise than as Patwari. The impugned order Anne-ure- P-2 is challenged as violative of the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Class III Service Rules, 1966 and Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and causing manifest injustice to the petitioners on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

(3.) In the written reply by way of affidavit of Shri J.S.Qaumi, I.A.S., Collector, District Bhatinda, a preliminary objection was made that the seniority list was yet to be finalised in accordance with the decision of this Court in Civil Writ No. 3585 of 1980 and decision of the Civil Court and, therefore, the present writ petition was said to be premature. Two. other preliminary objections i.e. (i) writ petition is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and (ii) that the petitioners have not e-hausted all other remedies, have been raised. Paras 1 to 5 have been admitted. In reply to Para No. 6 it has been stated that some Patwaris who had come from Consolidation Department on retrenchment on their having been shown in joint seniority list, represented against the seniority list to the Revenue Commissioner. Earlier some persons from Consolidation Department had filed a civil suit challenging the seniority list on the grounds inter alia that the seniority list finalised by the Collector made some persons junior to them as senior. Vide judgment dated 29-10-1983 the said suit was decreed directing that the seniority list of Patwaris be prepared in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Gulzar Singh Gill (C.W.P. 2585 of 1980), wherein it was held by this Court that once the Patwaris of Consolidation Department are absorbed in the Revenue Department the distinction between the two is automatically removed. In reply to Para 7 it is stated that persons who became senior to the plaintiff on the basis of seniority were impleaded as defendants arid the parsons who were not necessary parties were not impleaded as the defendants in the said suit. In reply to Para 8 it has been stated that the absorption of retrenched employees was made in the Revenue Department vide Government Instruction dated 21-7-78 and amendment in the Revenue Patwaris Class III Rules, 1966 was consequently made. The other grounds of attack have been denied in respective paras of the replies. Ultimately, it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.