Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Nardeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-27253-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Seniority Dispute - Punjab Cooperative Audit (Group B) Service Rules, 2007 - Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 - The court adjudicated on the correct method of working out the seniority among the promotees of two different categories and the direct recruits, applying the catch-up rule. The judgment discussed the catch-up rule, its interpretations, and its application in determining the seniority among the different categories of employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a physically handicapped employee, sought to quash the final seniority list of Audit Officers, claiming that the direct recruits were wrongly placed above him in the seniority list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the direct recruits were wrongly given the benefit of the catch-up rule and were not entitled to it. It held that the catch-up rule only applies to senior general category candidates promoted subsequent to their juniors from the feeder cadre on account of reservation, not to direct recruits.
Issues: The main issue was the correct method of determining seniority among promotees of different categories and direct recruits, specifically in the context of the catch-up rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the catch-up rule and held that it does not apply to direct recruits. It emphasized that the rule of seniority should balance the interests of all categories of employees and should not result in reverse discrimination.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ, quashed the seniority list, and directed the Department to revise the list in accordance with the court's observations.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - Primarily, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the final seniority list of the Audit Officers issued on 14.11.2022. The petitioner and the private respondents are working in the Department of Cooperation, Punjab. The petitioner, being physically handicapped, got accelerated promotion on 01.09.2016 as Audit Officer, whereas, the private respondents were directly recruited on 28.02.2017 & 04.12.2017 as Audit Officers. In my opinion, the following issue requires adjudication:-
'If the direct recruits are appointed subsequent to the date of accelerated promotion of the junior reserved category promotees but prior to the date of promotion of senior general category promotees, at the post Audit Officer, then, while applying the catch-up rule in determining the seniority among the promotees of two different categories and the direct recruits, what is the correct method of working out the seniority?"
2. The petitioner was appointed under the physically handicapped quota as Audit Inspector on 03.10.2001. He was promoted as Senior Auditor vide order dated 21.12.2011. Thereafter, he was promoted as Audit Officer vide order dated 17.08.2016 and he joined as such on 01.09.2016. The private respondents came to be directly recruited as Audit Officers in the years 2017-18. For convenience, it is considered appropriate to extract the relevant information of the various Officers, from the seniority list issued by the employer, in a tabulated manner, which is as under:-
| S. No. | Name of the Audit Officer | Date of birth | Date of retirement | Date of joining as A.O. | Category | Direct recruitment/ promotion/merit No. |
| 1. | Paramjit Singh S/o Sh. Gian Singh | 05.10.1961 | 31.10.2021 | 30.08.2016 | General Physically handicapped | By Promotion |
| 2. | Naval Kishore S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Goyal | 23.10.1990 | 31.10.2048 | 21.02.2018 | General | Direct recruitment Merit-1 |
| 3. | Rachna Gupta D/o Sh. Harbilas Gupta | 20.11.1979 | 30.11.2037 | 04.12.2017 | General | Direct recruitment Merit-2 |
| 4. | Sarabjit Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh | 05.05.1976 | 31.05.2034 | 04.12.2017 | S.C. | Direct recruitment Merit-7 |
| 5. | Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh | 13.01.1974 | 31.01.2032 | 04.12.2017 | B.C. | Direct recruitment Merit-8 |
| 6. | Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh | 14.02.1976 | 28.02.2034 | 05.12.2017 | S.C. | Direct recruitment Merit-11 |
| 7. | Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Jatinder Pal | 23.06.1969 | 30.06.2027 | 13.06.2019 | General | By Promotion |
| 8. | Darshan Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Bhaj Rai | 28.05.1973 | 31.05.2031 | 13.06.2019 | S.C. | By Promotion |
| 9. | Gagandeep Singh S/o Sh. Amrik Singh | 12.08.1976 | 31.08.2034 | 13.06.2019 | General | By Promotion |
| 10. | Manmohan Singh S/o Sh. Sarjit Singh | 24.11.1967 | 30.11.2025 | 26.07.2019 | B.C. | By Promotion |
| 11. | Vijay Singla S/o Sh. Prem Chand | 20.10.1972 | 30.11.2030 | 05.08.2019 | General | By Promotion |
| 12. | Nardeep Singh (writ petitioner) S/o Sh. Ram Singh | 06.07.1981 | 31.07.2041 | 01.09.2016 | General Physically handicapped | By Promotion |
| 13. | Sukhcharan Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh | 13.01.1972 | 31.01.2030 | 15.07.2019 | General | By Promotion |
| 14. | Jyoti D/o Sh. Jatinder Dutt | 06.07.1970 | 31.07.2028 | 17.12.2019 | General | By Promotion |
3. The service of employees of the Audit Department is governed by the Punjab Cooperative Audit (Group B) Service Rules, 2007. Rule 9 whereof provides that if the rules are silent in respect of any matter, then the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 in that matter.
4. Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, read as under:-
'Seniori
The catch-up rule in determining seniority among different categories of employees should be applied in a manner that balances the interests of all categories and does not result in reverse discrimin....
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
General category candidates senior in feeder cadre regain inter se seniority over earlier promoted reserved category roster-point promotees in higher cadre via catch-up rule, absent rules for consequ....
Seniority for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Law cannot come to the rescue of the official respondents in having extended a benefit in favour of certain employees in disregard of rules and the law on the subject. The Court cannot be a signatory....
Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officer....
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
