IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Fatehpal Singh and others .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ..Respondents Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Pronounced on:12.02.2026 Uploaded on:12.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Kumari, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ms. Seema Rani, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Narayan Arya Garg, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

*****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned seniority lists of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) dated 11.03.2004 (Annexure P-4) and subsequent lists for higher cadres including Assistant Executive Engineer and Senior Executive Engineer, as well as the impugned orders dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) and 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-12), and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners strictly on the basis of merit in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab and others, 1989 (4) RSJ 211 and the applicable Government instructions, with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) (General Category Officers) in the year 1999 pursuant to Advertisement CRA No.210/1998 (Annexure P-1). The Government of Punjab issued instructions in the years 1996, 1999 and 2000, as discernible from Annexures P-13 and P-14, adopting the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab, 1989 (4) RSJ 211 (SC), holding that roster points cannot determine seniority and that seniority has to be fixed on the basis of merit. Despite the aforesaid settled position of law, the respondent-Corporation issued a seniority list of Assistant Engineers on 11.03.2004 (Annexure P-4) and subsequent seniority lists for higher cadres, namely Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) and Senior Executive Engineer (SEE), by applying roster points, thereby placing reserved category candidates junior in merit above the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted various representations and also approached this Court by filing CWP No.26975 of 2018, which stood disposed of on 02.03.2023 (Annexure P-9). It is further submitted that the respondent-Corporation itself obtained a legal opinion, wherein it was categorically opined that the judgment rendered in Ajit Singh’s case (supra) was required to be applied. However, instead of acting in accordance with the said legal opinion, the respondent-Corporation passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) rejecting the claim of the petitioners and finalized the seniority list. A subsequent rejection order dated

08.11.2024 (Annexure P-12) was also passed.

2.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further refers to Regulations 9 and 16 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965, which govern the determination of seniority. It is submitted that a conjoint reading of Regulations 9 and 16 clearly establishes that the seniority of Assistant Engineers appointed through direct recruitment is to be determined strictly on the basis of merit secured in the selection process as per the merit list prepared by the competent authority, and that such seniority once fixed cannot be disturbed.

2.2 Learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the instructions dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Government of Punjab, which unequivocally stipulate that in cases of direct recruitment, seniority shall be determined solely on the basis of merit as pr