IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2025 CWP-16171-1995 GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .......Respondents CWP-15374-2014 VED PARKASH DHINGRA AND OTHERS ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-15374-2014.

Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-16171-1995.

Mr. Balwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate for respondents no. 4, 6 and 7 in CWP-16171-1995.

Mr. Ankur Goyat, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4 in CWP-15374-2014.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Raising an issue as to whether the seniority was drawn in terms of Rule 11, 12 and 13 of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), Ziladars’ State Service Class-III, Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1955) from the date of the confirmation of the members in service as per Rule 13 or from the date of joining or the length of service, as opined by the Legal Remembrancer, Punjab, these writ petitions have been filed.

2. While the petitioners in CWP-15374 of 2014 claim that the seniority list prepared by the respondents has not been drawn in accordance with the said service Rules and therefore have challenged the tentative seniority list as circulated on 01.04.2013 on the basis of length of service. The petitioners in CWP-16171-1995 are the ones who claim that the seniority has to be determined on length of service and hence has to be drawn from the date of their appointment irrespective of the date of passing of the Departmental Revenue Examination and that further promotions to the posts should be made on the basis of such seniority list.

3. In order to appreciate the said controversy, it would be apposite to refer to the governing provisions of the Rules, 1955.

"11.(1) Persons who are appointed against permanent vacancies in the Service, shall remain on probation, for a period of two years, in the first instance. During the period of probation all persons shall be allowed pay in the time scale. They shall also be eligible to draw increments during the period of probation provided their work is satisfactory.

Explanation-Officiating service or service spent on deputation to a corresponding or higher post shall be reckoned as period spent on probation, but no person who is officiating in any appointment, shall, on completion of the requisite period of two years in such appointment, be entitled to be confirmed until he is appointed against a permanent vacancy and has earned at least two good annual reports in succession on his work. Provided that the seniority according to the list of accepted candidates as laid drown in Rule 13(2) shall not be changed, that is to say, a candidate cannot be appointed on probation from a date prior to that from which his senior is so appointed.

11(2) If the work or conduct of any person during his period of probation is, in the opinion of the Chief Engineer, not satisfactory, the Chief Engineer, may, at any time during the period of probation or prior to his confirmation dispense with his services, if recruited direct, or revert him to his former post, if he had been recruited otherwise than by direct appointment.

11(3) On the completion of the period of probation specified in sub-rule (1) of any person, the Chief Engineer may confirm such person in his appointment, or if his work or conduct has, in the opinion of the Chief Engineer, not been satisfactory, or he has failed to pass the Departmental Revenue Examination referred to in rule 12, dispense with his services, if recruited direct, or, as the case may be, revert him to his former post, if he had been recruited otherwise than by direct appointment, or extend the period of his probation (but not s