IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUKHVINDER KAUR, JJ.
Jagbir Singh & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-18515 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of absorption into pwd department. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. impact of previous court orders on appointments. (Para 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. challenging seniority and promotions based on absorption. (Para 30 , 32) |
| 4. assessment of delay and laches in raising claims. (Para 54 , 73) |
| 5. final decisions on seniority assignments. (Para 330 , 331) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
Since common issues of law and fact arise in this batch of cases, they are being disposed off by this common order.
2. We are concerned in these cases with the legality and validity of absorption of Sh.PradeepAtri, Sh. Praveen Chaudhary,Sh.Pankaj Gaur and Sh.Arun Bhatia(for short 'private respondents') [originally appointed as Sub Divisional Engineers/ Asst.Engineers (Civil) in the Haryana Rural and Panchayat Raj Department [for short 'the PR Department']] into the Haryana Public Works (Building and Roads) Department [for short 'the PWD (B&R) Department'] and grant of seniority to them above certain direct recruits.
| Name | Date of appointment in the PR dept. as SubDivisional Engineer/Asst Engineer | Date of deputation to PWD (B&R) dept. as SubDivisional Engineer/Asst Engineer | Date of absorption in PWD (B&R) dept. as Sub Divisional Engineer/Asst Engineer | Date from which seniority was given to them in the cadre of Asst.Engineer | Date on which such seniority was conferred on them |
| Pradeep Atri | 6.12.2004 | 16.11.2005 | 6.10.2006 | 6.10.2006 | 2.7.2010 |
| Praveen Chaudhary | 18.10.2005 | 25.4.2006 | 18.7.2007 | 2.5.2006 | Order dt.1.10.2019 |
| Pankaj Gaur | 18.10.2005 | 22.11.2007 | 23.10.2009 | 5.1.2008 | Order dt.1.5.2017 |
| Arun Bhatia | 18.10.2005 | 22.11.2007 | 23.10.2009 | 5.1.2008 | Order dt.1.5.2017 |
An overview of the background facts
3. The PWD (B&R) Department had issued an advertisement on 07.05.2006 inviting applications for 44 posts of Sub Divisional Engineers (also called "Asst. Engineers") to be recruited by way of direct recruitment through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Their conditions of service are governed by the Rules mentioned above.
4. The petitioners in CWP-7706-2011, CWP-18515-2012, CWP- 18075-2011, CWP-11848-2020, CWP-858-2021and first two petitioners in CWP-12882-2020 applied in response to the said advertisement and qualified in the test conducted by the said Commission and their cases were also recommended by it to the State Government on 14.11.2006.
5. Sh. Pradeep Atri, Sh. Pankaj Gaur and Sh. Arun Bhatia also appeared for the said examination for direct recruitment in the PWD (B&R) Department held in 2006, but did not qualify.
CWP-16016-2000 and the undertaking given by the State therein
6. By that time, CWP-16016-2000 and batch had been filed in this Court by certain persons selected in the PWD (B&R) Department to the post of Sub Divisional Engineers in 1999/2000, but who were denied appointments on the ground of reduction of cadre strength.
7. So a corrigendum was issued on 8.5.2006 that the recruitment to 44 posts of Asst.Engineer in the PWD(B&R) Department notified on 7.5.2006 would be subject to decision in CWP-16016-2000 and batch pending in this Court as on that date.
8. They filed an application CM-14464-2006 in the said Writ Petition seeking stay of fresh appointments on the basis of the recommendations made by Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 14.11.2006.
9. On 22.11.2006, in CWP-16016-2000, the following order was passed:
10. On 29.11.2006, the Counsel for the State gave an undertaking that appointment letters would not be issued to the selected candidates recommended by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 14.11.2006.
Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana
C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala 2020 (5) SCC 230
Chief Engineer and Secretary, Engineering Department
Govinda Chandra Tiria v. Sibaji Charan Panda (2020) 3 SCC 803.
Joginder Nath v. Union of India
K. Megahachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020) 5 SCC 689
K.A. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala
Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh
Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra
S.N.Karkhanis v. Union of India
Sasidhar Reddy Sura v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (2) SCC 158
State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545
Surender Narayan v. State of Bihar 1998 (5) SCC 246
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Service matter - Seniority - The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service....
Vested rights of promoted employees cannot be impaired by subsequent administrative actions, preserving seniority acquired under prior rules.
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
Merit-based seniority must prevail in public service appointments despite procedural delays, ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities as mandated by service regulations.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.