The main legal point established is that seniority is to be determined after appointment, and Rules 1994 have an overriding effect over any contrary provisions in recruitment rules.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. By this judgment of mine, two petitions bearing Civil Writ Petition No.16073 of 2016 and Civil Writ Petition No.15572 of 2016 shall be disposed of as common question of law and facts are involved. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from Civil Writ Petition No.16073 of 2016.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of seniority list dated 24.06.2016 (Annexure P-10), which has been prepared without adhering to the provisions under Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976 (here-in-after called as the 'Rules, 1976). A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forward the names of the eligible officers for selection and promotion to the Indian Administrative Service in accordance with the seniority fixed as per 'the Rules 1976' and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Arvinder Singh Bains and others vs State of Punjab and others 2006 (6) SCC 673.

3. As per case of the petitioners, they are senior most officers in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and are eligible for promotion to the Indian Administrative Services. They are aggrieved by action of the respondents in over ruling the seniority fixed as per the Rules, 1976 in the year 2007. The impugned seniority list dated 24.06.2016 has been prepared in complete contravention of the Rules, 1976. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the impugned seniority list which has been prepared in violation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Arvinder Singh Bains's case (supra). It is also their grievance that the petitioners are not being considered for promotion to the Indian Administrative Services as Service Rules, 1976 regarding 'rota and quota' principle have been interpreted.

4. Mr. Gurminder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP No.16073 of 2016 as well as Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, learned senior counsel appearing in CWP No.15572 of 2016 submit that the seniority of the officers from various Registers has been re-determined by applying the provisions of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules 1994'), which provides that the seniority of the officers is to be considered on the basis of continuous length of service. Learned counsel also submit that the seniority of the petitioners has been determined by taking into consideration the date of appointment/joining and not as per roster prescribed under Rule 18 read with Rule 21 which is stated to be the correct method for deciding inter-se seniority of the officers belonging to different Registers. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the seniority of the petitioners, in both the cases, has been fixed on the lower points, whereas, they are entitled to be placed in their respective Registers and thereafter to appoint as per roster under Rule 18. Learned counsel further submit that a joint reading of Rules 7, 8 and 18 clearly reflects that the appointments are to be made only after entering their names into their respective Registers as “accepted candidates” and thereafter by making actual appointment in accordance with Rule 18. Meaning thereby, every alternative vacancy is to be filled up by Register 'B' candidates. Learned senior counsel further submit that the first officer to be appointed must be a direct recruit duly entered as accepted candidate in Register 'B' and thereafter, the officers are to be appointed in accordance with the roster as provided under Rule 18. If the appointments are deferred of a particular Register then the seniority is to be fixed as per Rule 18 read with Rule 21. Learned counsel also submits that petitioners No.1 and 2 were deferred on