IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 CWP-586-2014 (O & M)

Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Harpreet Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Amarpeet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the final seniority list dated 27.09.2021 for the posts of Clerk/Junior Assistant, which was formulated based on the date of birth, without taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioners.

2. It can be gleaned from the facts that the petitioners were selected and appointed as clerks through a selection committee in the office of Director, Technical Education during 01.01.0996- 30.01.1996 on 89-days basis, with their services later regularized through Punjab Government's instructions dated 26.05.2003. Upon circulation, the tentative seniority list in 2009, was objected to on the ground that inter-se seniority should be based on their initial appointment and total service length as per Punjab Civil Services Rules, not from the date of regularization. Despite the Personnel Department later opining in their favor as per Para 3(e) of the 2003 Instructions, the department proceeded with finalizing the list without considering the aforesaid, compelling the petitioners to file the present petition before confirmation of their adverse seniority position.

3. In an endeavour to evaluate the aforesaid issue, a profitable reference is being made to Daljit Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another¹, a case preferred at the hands of petitioners who were regularized on the same date but were accorded inter se seniority based on their extended tenure of service within the department, contention, branding such a criterion as arbitrary, sought seniority to be determined by age precedence, was not the accepted and consequently dismissed on 09.09.2024 of which no LPA had arisen. It was held therein that even in clause 14(d) of the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Service Rules, 2007, instances where individuals are amalgamated from diverse departmental entities, the determination of hierarchical precedence shall be predicated upon the temporal duration of their professional tenure. The findings as summarised in the aforesaid judgement, as relatable to the present case read thus:

12. The argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is that taking into account the length of service of contractual appointment in order to frame seniority of the employees will amount to grant the benefit of adhoc service towards seniority, which is not permissible and keeping in view the fact that the State Government in similar circumstances where the services of the employees have been regularized on the same date, inter se seniority has been decided on the basis of the age of the employees on the date of regularization of service, hence, the petitioner being senior to the private respondents in age on the date when the services of the petitioner as well as private respondents.

13. It may be noticed that in case, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same will lead to a very anomalous situation.

14. It is a conceded position that private respondents have longer length of service on contractual basis as compared to the petitioner. The employee, who has longer length of service has a better claim for regularization of (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)

(cid:11)

CWP-27451, decided on 09.09.2024 service as compared to an employee, who has lesser length of service on contra