The main legal point established in the judgment is the impermissibility of altering seniority without challenging the foundation of appointment, and the impact of delay on challenging seniority and promotions.

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

1. In the instant appeal, the appellant has questioned the orders of the trial and appellate court dated 16.05.2009 and 18.12.2013 respectively.

2. The appellant and private respondents were in the cadre of Steno-Typist in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Before the appellant entering into the cadre of Steno-Typist he was initially appointed as a Clerk on 12.03.1992. Thereafter, he was a candidate for the selection to the post of Steno-Typist and he was appointed to the post of Steno-Typist on 27.07.1992. He had further earned promotion to the cadre of Junior scale and Senior scale in the year 1995 and 1999 respectively. In the meanwhile on 31.12.1993 official respondents published seniority list of Steno-Typist in which the appellant's name appeared at Serial No. 39 whereas the private respondents have been placed below the appellant. The private respondents approached the official respondents to rectify the seniority list and ranking assigned to the appellant and the private respondents in the year 2004. Thus, the official respondents proceeded to alter the ranking assigned to the appellant and the private respondents while placing private respondents over and above the appellant.

3. Feeling aggrieved by such assignment of ranking in the seniority list of Steno-Typist, appellant filed suit before the trial court. The trial Court rejected the suit so also the appellate court. Thus, the present appeal has been presented.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was appointed on 12.03.1992 as a Clerk. Even though he was not eligible for applying to the post of Steno-Typist for the reasons that he did not fulfil the qualification of experience in the cadre of Clerk to the extent of one year. However, the official respondents entertained the appellant's application and others who were similarly situated Clerks. Appellant was permitted to participate in the process of competitive test and thus, he was appointed on 27.07.1992 and further with reference to the date of entry into the cadre of Steno-Typist he was assigned ranking in the seniority list on 31.12.1993. In this background, he was further promoted to the post of Junior scale and Senior scale in the year 1995 and 1999 respectively with reference to the seniority list dated 31.12.1993. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that alteration or tinkering of seniority list of Steno-Typist by the official respondents is at the behest of one Sarabjit Kaur 2nd respondent, Personal Assistant to the then Joint Secretary, namely Sh. S.S. Khara who was the competent authority to prepare and publish seniority list. Thus, the 2nd respondent and 19th respondent in collusion, altered the seniority list in the year 2004 issued on 31.12.1993. The said contention was taken before the trial court as well as appellate court. Both the courts have not appreciated and considered. It was further submitted that seniority list cannot be altered after it was given effect for the purpose of promotions like Junior and Senior scale. In the present case, the seniority list is dated 31.12.1993 which has been given effect for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Junior scale or Senior scale in the year 1995 and 1999. Therefore, alternation of seniority list dated 31.12.1993 by the official respondents is highly arbitrary and illegal. Thus, trial and appellate court have erred in not appreciating the fact of delay as well as with the mala-fide intention of 19th respondent-Joint Secretary in order to help 2nd respondent ranking in the seniority list has been altered. Hence, the orders of trial and appellate court are liable to be set aside. Consequently, alteration of seniority list is to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents vehemently submitted that the appellant is not entitled to be appointed as a Steno-Typist on 27.07.1992 for the reasons that he did not fulfil one of the qualification namely one year of serv