The central legal point established in the judgment is that seniority of government employees should be determined in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of entry into service.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. The petitioner was recruited as Sub-Inspector through Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab and joined the respondent-department as Sub-Inspector on 13.5.1960. Seniority list of Sub Inspectors of the Cooperative Societies was published for the first time in the month of February, 1972. The name of the petitioner was not shown in the aforesaid seniority list. In the month of January, 1984 again a tentative list of Sub Inspectors of Cooperative Societies was published depicting the position as it existed on 1.7.1983. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 284. The petitioner made a representation against the tentative seniority list. Representation of the petitioner was not decided. The petitioner, therefore, filed CWP No. 1800 of 1985. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of the passing of the order i.e., September 1, 1986. On 15.10.1986, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by passing a wholly non-speaking order. Upto 1.8.1954, Sub Inspectors, Cooperative Societies were working under the Union. The State Government took over the staff thereafter. The service condition of the Sub Inspectors were governed by the Punjab Cooperatives Subordinate Services Rules, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The post of Sub Inspectors was not included in the Appendix "A" to the aforesaid Rules. However, the notification dated 9.6.1972, the post of Sub Inspectors, Cooperative Societies was added in Appendix "A". The petitioner claim that since he was appointed as Sub Inspector on 13.5.1960, his seniority in the cadre of Sub Inspectors has to be fixed in accordance with the instructions dated 29.3.1957 which have been subsequently modified on various dates, In all these instructions, it is provided that seniority of the employees who have been recruited through Subordinate Services Selection Board/Public Service Commission, shall be determined in the same order in which their names were recommended.

2. Written statement has been filed by the respondents. It has been stated that the seniority of the petitioner has to be determined under the 1936 Rules. Under Rule 8 of these Rules, the seniority of the petitioner has to be determined with effect from the date he had passed the Sub Inspector Training Class examination which is provided under Rule 8 (i) (Part II Executive) of the Punjab Cooperative Subordinates Service Rules, 1936. The petitioner passed the examination in October, 1964. Thus his seniority has been correctly fixed w.e.f. 1964.

3. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by now, it is settled proposition of law that seniority of the government employee has to be determined in accordance with the rules/regulations or executive instructions in the absence of statutory rules which were prevalent at the time of the entry of the government servant into service. Since the post of Sub Inspectors, Cooperative Societies was not included in Appendix "A" of 1936 Rules, the seniority of the petitioner has to be fixed in accordance with the instructions dated 29.3.1957 which provided that the seniority shall be fixed in the same order in which the employees names are recommended either by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab or by the Punjab Service Commission. He has submitted that the accrued right of the petitioner could not be taken away by the subsequent amendment in the 1936 Rules. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhim Sein Gupta and ORs. v. State of Haryana and ORs. , 1997(2) A.I. J, 46.

4. MRs. Ritu Bahri, learned counsel appearing for the State has reiterated the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement and submitted that the seniority of the petitioner has been correc