Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 786
2008(4) Supreme 323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Jaswant Singh Lamba — Petitioner
versus
Haryana Agricultural University & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3323 of 2008
Decided on : 06-05-2008
IMPORTANT POINT
Seniority is not a fundamental right. It is merely a civil right.
Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII, rule 1 – Appellant not being a necessary party to the writ petition, the review application at his instance was not maintainable. (Paras 8, 9 and 12)
(1996) 3 SCC 587 – Distinguished.
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII, rule 1 – Appellant having knowledge of the High Court judgment could have filed a LPA – Not doing so, the order was allowed to attain finality – Appellant did not have locus standi to maintain review petition. (Paras 13 and 14)
(2005) 9 SCC 335 – Distinguished.
(c) Service Law – Seniority – Seniority is not a fundamental right – It is merely a civil right. (Para 16)
Facts of the case :
1. Respondent No.4 was appointed on a temporary post on 27.9.1984, whereas the appellant was appointed on 5.10.1984. Respondent No.5 is said to have been appointed on a temporary post by an order dated 7.6.1985. In a seniority list published on 23.12.1987, their seniority was shown from the date of their regular appointment.
2. The said respondents, however, contended that as they were appointed in terms of the recruitment rules against permanent vacancies, they had wrongly been appointed on an ad hoc basis on and from 11.11.1982.
3. Their representation that they were entitled to be appointed with effect from 11.11.1982 on a regular basis was rejected. They filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed making the appellant junior to them.
4. The review petition filed by the appellant was rejected.
Finding of the Court :
High Court rightly concluded that the review application was not maintainable.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dismissing a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated on 23.11.1992. The review of the said judgment was sought for by the appellant, inter alia, on the premise that the decision of the High Court, allowing a writ petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 resulted in loss of his seniority. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as Sectional Officers on an ad hoc basis on or about 11.11.1982. Respondent No.4 was appointed on a temporary post on 27.9.1984, whereas the appellant was appointed on 5.10.1984. Respondent No.5 is said to have been appointed on a temporary post by an order dated 7.6.1985. In a seniority list published on 23.12.1987, their seniority was shown from the date of their regular appointment. The said respondents, however, contended that as they were appointed in terms of the recruitment rules against permanent vacancies, they had wrongly been appointed on an ad hoc basis on and from 11.11.1982.
Their representation that they were entitled to be appointed with effect from 11.11.1982 on a regular basis was rejected. They filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 2.6.1990, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :
“(a) a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, quashing the impugned Annexure P/9.
(b) a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and respondents to grant benefit of ad hoc services towards fixation of the seniority of the petitioners and to refix their seniority after counting their ad hoc service.
(c) a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, directing the respondents to fix pay of the petitioners after taking into consideration their ad hoc service towards grant of increments etc. and to release their arrears along with interest @ Rs.180 per annum.”
3. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court by an order dated 23.11.1992 directing that the said respondents shall be deemed to be in the service of the respondent on a regular basis from the date of their initial appointment, holding :
“After considering the entire matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be rejected. Undisputedly, the petitioners were initially appointed after they had been selected by a Committee with effect from November 11, 1982 and they had been continuously working as such without any break till they were appointed on regular basis. Though the services of the petitioner No.1 stood terminated by serving him a notice dated November 11, 1983, yet he has not relieved and was allowed to continue on the post after he gave an undertaking that in case extension is not granted, he will not claim any salary etc. Later on, he was granted extension of another six months by order dated December 2, 1983. Therefore, there is no break in his service even till his regular appointment.”
4. Allegedly, a seniority list was published on 18.4.1992 wherein the appellant was shown as senior to the respondent No.5 being at serial No.16 and respondent No.5 was shown as junior to him being placed at serial No.18. However, another seniority list was published on 20.5.2004 wherein they were shown as senior to the appellant. Appellant filed representations thereagainst, inter alia, on 29.5.2004 and 24.8.2004. The said representations were rejected by an order dated 1.1.2005, stating :
“It is intimated that your representation for fixing of seniority as Junior Engineer above Shri A.K. Agarwal, J.E. has been considered and rejected in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Pb. & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9879 of 1990 dated 23.11.1992 on the basis of which Sh. A.K. Aggarwal has been treated to be joined on regu
