CWP-9503-20 IN THE 221 1) CWP-9503 KULDEEP YADAV STATE OF HARYANA 2) CWP-14494 CHARANJIT STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE Present:- Mr. Mr. for Dr. TRIBHUVAN These issues, accordingly, have been taken 2. The mandamus directing as Lecturer in or from 31.01.1996, regularised, and 3. Learned petitioners’ case 2020 with CWP-14494-2020 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH Date 9503-2020 YADAV Versus HARYANA AND OTHERS 14494-2020 CHARANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS Versus HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Dr. Neha Awasthi, Additional Advocate TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) These petitions are based upon similar accordingly, the same are being decided taken from CWP-9503-2020. The petition has been filed, inter directing the respondents to treat Geography with effect from the 31.01.1996, the date from which his and grant the consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner cases are squarely covered by the PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 …Petitioner(s) …Respondent(s) …Petitioner(s) …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Advocate General, Haryana. similar facts involving common decided together. For brevity, the facts inter alia, seeking a writ of the petitioner in regular service the date of his adhoc appointment his juniors in adhoc service were benefits. petitioner(s) contends that the the judgment dated 09.09.2010, common facts of service appointment were the , Aman Dua 2025.08.26 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-9503-20 rendered in CWP State of Haryana dismissed by same has been vide order dated service has already pay, therefore, 4. Learned cases are not adhoc basis was arrangement just concerned. Besides, fresh selection Service Rules, date prior to thei 5. Heard. 6. This directed the respondents petitioners therein consequential consequential seniority position appointed with on adhoc basis become junior other teachers, 2020 with CWP-14494-2020 -2- CWP-8604-2007 titled Dr. Surindra Haryana and another, against which the Division Bench vide judgment been upheld by the Supreme Court dated 10.05.2018. He also contends already been counted by the respondents therefore, they are entitled to the claimed Learned State counsel, however, covered by the judgment relied was not in accordance with the Rules just to meet out the urgent Besides, they have been appointed selection in terms of the Haryana Education Rules, 1986, and cannot be considered their appointment in the Department. Heard. This Court vide judgment in Dr. respondents to count adhoc period therein towards seniority, and also benefits. In case the petitioners are benefits from the date of their adhoc position would be disturbed and with effect from 12.01.1994, i.e., after basis till their joining the Department juniors. Accordingly, it will lead to change , who are undisputedly senior to Surindra Kumar Mishra and others v. which LPA-886-2021 has been judgment dated 13.10.2011, and the in SLP (Civil) no.321 of 2015, contends that the petitioners’ adhoc respondents to provide senior scale of relief. however, contends that the petitioners’ relied upon, as their appointment on Rules and was simply a stop gap requirements of the College appointed in Government service after Education (College cadre) Group B considered in regular service from any Department. Dr. Surender Kumar Mishra case, period of service rendered by the also held them entitled to all are held entitled to seniority and adhoc appointment, the existing the persons who have been after the petitioners’ appointment Department on regular basis, would change in seniority positions of to the petitioners in the seniority . been the , adhoc of ’ on gap College after B any case, the all and existing been appointment would of seniority Aman Dua 2025.08.26 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-9503-20 list. And without it will be in violation claim for re-determination all the affected a reference can Kumar Kaul and relevant paragraph 36. Tribunal were they benefit direction jeopardise parties 7. In claimed relief 8. A 19.08.2025 Ad 2020 with CWP-14494-2020 -3- without hearing such affected parties, violation of the Principles of Natural determination of seniority cannot ected parties having been impleaded can be made to law laid down by and others v. Union of India and paragraph of the judgment is as under: 36. Another aspect needs to be Tribunal nor before the High Court, were arrayed as parties. There is they are senior to the appellants benefit of promotion to the higher direction is issued for fixation jeopardise their interest. When they parties such a relief is difficult to In view thereof, the petitioners and the petitions stand dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable parties, the prayer cannot be granted as Natural Justice. It is settled law that be entertained in the absence of before the Court. In this regard, by the Supreme Court in Vijay and others, (2012) 7 SCC 610, under: be highlighted. Neither before the Court, Parveen Kumar and others no dispute over the factum that appellants and have been conferred the higher posts. In their absence, if any of seniority, that is likely to they have not been impleaded as grant. cannot be held entitled to the dismissed. placed on the connected file. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No as that of , Vijay 610, the others that the any to as the DAHIYA) Aman Dua 2025.08.26 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document