Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits determined by date of actual appointment to grade, not eligibility or process initiation date; direct recruits appointed earlier senior despite promotee delays.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“a) Quash the decision dated 15/10/2009 (Annexure- P/8) taken by the respondent no.2.

b) Quash the final seniority list as at 30/4/2010 (Annexure-P/17).

c) Quash the proceedings of DPC which was convened on 9/7/2010 in so far it relates to the consideration for promotion to Gr.II. from amongst the Petitioners and the respondents no. 4 to 8.

d) Respondents no.1 to 3 be directed to implement the instructions issued by the Secretary (Coop.) to the Government of HP dated 5/10/2009 and the instructions issued by the respondent no.3 on 19/10/2009 for computing the seniority and other benefits to the respondents no. 4 to 8.”

2. The petitioners were initially recruited in respondent No.1 bank (for short, “the bank”) as Grade-IV Employees. They have been promoted to Grade-III w.e.f. 9.7.2001. The private respondents on the other hand have been directly recruited as Grade-III Employees in the bank on 15.11.2000.

3. The dispute herein is with respect to the seniority positions of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents in the category of Grade-III employees of the bank.

4. The petitioners are claiming right to be placed above the private respondents in the seniority list on the premise that they were eligible for promotion to Grade-III since 1998 but the DPC was belatedly held on 28.9.2000 and on that date also, the proceedings could not be finalized for want of final seniority list of Grade-IV employees. Thereafter, the DPC was held on 13.11.2000 but again the proceedings could not be finalized on account of a stay having been granted by respondent No.3 (for short, “the RCS”) in proceedings initiated by one Ms. Satya Devi. In the meanwhile, the direct recruits were appointed on 15.11.2000. Thus, basing their right to have promoted before appointment of private respondents, the reliefs, as noticed above, have been prayed.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, Board of Directors of the Bank (for short, “the BOD”) after accepting the representation of the petitioners had ordered to place them higher in seniority list than the private respondents. Aggrieved against the said decision, the private respondents had approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3063 of 2004, which subsequently came to be transferred to this Court as CWP(T) No. 16653 of 2008.

6. It has also been alleged that the bank thereafter had issued seniority list of Grade-III employees from 2005 to 2008 successively, showing petitioners as senior to private respondents, but the private respondents did not raise any objection. It was only after the seniority list was circulated on 1.7.2009 that a representation was made, which was accepted by the BOD on 15.10.2009. As a consequence, the petitioners were placed below the private respondents in final seniority list, circulated on 7.7.2010.

7. In the above noticed facts, the petitioners have raised the following grounds:-

I) The BOD had assigned no reasons vide its decision dated 15.10.2009 to overturn the decision taken by the BOD in 2003, save and except that the chairman of the BOD