RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the petitioner, Shri Ravi Kumar and the private respondents No. 4 to 7, namely S/Shri Pushpinder Singh, Harbans Kumar, Madan Gopal and Ramesh Chand pertains to the inter se seniority as Projector Operators. They are working as such on the establishment of respondents No. 1 and 2, particularly respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, is the recruiting agency through which the petitioner and the private respondents were recruited as Projector Operators.

(2.) Admittedly, the process for recruitment was initiated vide letter dated 02.11.1999, Annexure-R-1. The petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 07.11.1989, Annexure-A-3. Annexure- A-4 is the appointment letter dated 23.01.1991 in respect of respondent No.4, Shri Pushpinder Singh. In the seniority list, Annexure-A-2, whereas the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 43 with his date of appointment as 15.11.1989, the private respondents No. 4 to 7, are mentioned at Sr. Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 41 with date(s) of appointment of each of them mentioned as 08.02.1991. Thus, it is apparent that since the petitioner was appointed way back on 15.11.1989, his appointment is prior in point of time in relation to the appointment of the private respondents No. 4 to 7. As such, it is manifest on the face of record that though the petitioner has been appointed earlier to the private respondents No. 4 to 7, yet he has been shown junior to them. In this regard the stand taken by the official respondents No. 1 to 3 is that since the petitioner and private respondents No. 4 to 7 were recruited as Projector Operators in the same very process which was initiated in the year, 1989 and as per the select list, the private respondents as aforesaid were higher in merit as compared to the petitioner, they were assigned seniority over and above the petitioner albeit the fact that he had already been appointed as Projector Operator on 15.11.1989. However, the submission on the face of it appears to be fallacious for the reasons that un-disputably the petitioner who belongs to a Schedule Caste was recruited as Projector Operator against reserved vacancy meant for Schedule Caste. As such he was appointed as Projector Operator against such vacancy on the basis of rota quota rule on 15.11.1989. In such situation, even if, it is admitted for a moment for the sake of argument that private respondents No.4 to 7 were higher in merit to the petitioner, they cannot rank senior to him by any stretch of imagination, what to say of any instruction, rule or law as on 15.11.1989, when the petitioner was appointed as Projector Operator, the private respondents No. 4 to 7 were not even borne on the establishment of respondents No. 1 and 2. It appears that the petitioner who was appointed against the reserved vacancy was given appointment earlier to the private respondents only for the reason that at the given time a vacancy existed for such reserved category and it was only thereafter that vacancies occurred against which the private respondents No. 4 to 7 were appointed later on.

(3.) In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled for grant of the relief prayed for. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the communication dated 07.06.1994, Annexure-A-1/T conveying rejection of the representation made by the petitioner and seniority list, Annexure-A-2, in so far as the same relates to the petitioner and private respondents No. 4 to 7 are quashed with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to draw a fresh seniority list by showing the petitioner senior to the private respondents No. 4 to 7, by assigning him a slot in the seniority list, over and above the private respondent No.4, Shri Pushpinder Singh.