Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BINDAL & HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 1056 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-03-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr. Gautam Pathania, Mr. Rohit Samhotra and Mr. Kamaal Singh Dhillon, Advocates, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh and Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocates, Mr. Puneet Gupta, Mr. Anil Rana and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocates, Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar and Mr. Ishan Kaushal, Advocates, Mr. S. S. Swaich, Ms. Monu Khan and Ms. Deepika Roy, Advocates, Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gagandeep Kaur and Ms. Ektaa Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Piyush Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Ms. Harleen Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab., Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Mr. Khushkaran Kumar, Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh and Mr. Pranav Grover, Advocates, Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Mr. Sidharth Grover and Mr. Kanwardeep S. Sodhi, Advocates, Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar and Ms. Ramneeq Kaur, Advocates, Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Mr. Jaitej P. Mittal and Ms. Damanpreet Kaur, Advocates, Ms. Akanksha Nayyar, Ms. Ankita Bajaj and Ms. Rashi Gosain, Advocates for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Mr. K.K. Saini and Ms. Charu Verma, Ms. Tanya Malik and Mr. Akshay Bansal, Advocates, Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Mr. Saurabh Gulia, Mr. Saroj Malakar and Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocates, Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Rangi and Mr. H.S. Tuli, Advocates.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing CWP Nos.1056, 1057, 1209, 1983, 2335 and 21544 of 2016.
2. The dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of members of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The impugned seniority list was circulated on 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-1).
Arguments of the petitioners
CWP No. 1056 of 2016
3. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein were appointed against the posts meant for direct recruitment quota. Advertisement for recruitment was issued on 2.2.2008. Written test was held on 18.5.2008. After interviews, the petitioners were found to be meritorious. The Selection Committee in its meeting held on 25.7.2008 approved their names for appointment as Additional District & Sessions Judges in the State of Punjab. It was followed by letter of recommendation dated 29.7.2008 from the Registrar General of this Court to the State. On 28.11.2008, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners. After medical examination, the petitioners were issued posting orders on 8.12.2008.
4. Respondents No. 3 to 15 were regularly promoted on the basis of their seniority. They were appointed on promotion on 18.2.2008 and joined as such on 23.2.2008.
5. Respondents No. 16 and 17 are the officers, who were earlier working in Fast Track Courts and have been selected in the same competitive examination in which the petitioners appeared and were appointed vide letter dated 20.6.2008 against the vacancies meant for direct recruitment quota. They joined at their place of posting on 28.7.2008.
6. Respondents No. 18 to 25 are the officers, who were promoted in terms of Rule 7(3)(b) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter described as 'the 2007 Punjab Rules') by way of a limited departmental competitive examination. Their names were recommended by the High Court to the State along with the petitioners on 29.7.2008, however, they managed to get their names cleared and were issued appointment letters on 11.8.2008 and were posted on 22.10.2008. In the meeting of the Recruitment/Promotion Committee (Superior Judicial Services) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') held on 15.9.2014, it was decided to circulate tentative seniority list of the officers of the Superior Judicial Service, Punjab for inviting objections. Needful was done as the tentative seniority list was circulated to all the officers vide letter dated 25.9.2014 by the Registrar Vigilance of this Court, to which various objections were filed. After hearing, the Committee vide its report dated 11.8.2015 opined that the objections were not sustainable, hence, it was recommended that the tentative seniority list already circulated does not require any alteration or modification and the same be finalised as such. The objections filed by the petitioners and other officers were rejected. The aforesaid report of the Committee was circulated, on which one of the Hon'ble Judge of this Court offered his comments on 16.9.2015, in terms of which the matter required re-consideration. Thereafter, the matter was put up in the Full Court meeting held on 22.12.2015. The report of the Committee was accepted, and the final seniority list was circulated, which has been impugned in the present petitions.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the service is governed by the 2007 Punjab Rules, which were notified on 3.9.2007. The service of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service is governed by the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter described as 'the 2007 Haryana Rules'), which were notified on 10.1.2007. Rule 2 of the 2007 Punjab Rules provides for definitions, whereas Rule 7 provides for method of appointment with three sources, namely, by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of
