IN TH 207 Harpreet Sing State of Punja CORAM: H Present : AMAN CHA 1. seniority list which was f account the le 2. selected and office of Dire 89-days basi Government' tentative seni seniority sho length as p regularization favor as per P with finalizin petitioners to seniority posi IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGARH et Singh and others Versus f Punjab and others M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Amarpeet Singh Bains, AAG ***** CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present peti ty list dated 27.09.2021 for the post was formulated based on the date o t the length of service rendered by the It can be gleaned from the fac d and appointed as clerks through a of Director, Technical Education durin s basis, with their services later ment's instructions dated 26.05.20 e seniority list in 2009, was objected ty should be based on their initial ap as per Punjab Civil Services Ru ization. Despite the Personnel Depar s per Para 3(e) of the 2003 Instruction nalizing the list without considering t ners to file the present petition before ty position. UNJAB & HARYANA AT GARH CWP-586-2014 (O & M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025 ....Petitioners ...Respondents AMAN CHAUDHARY te, for the petitioners. s, AAG, Punjab. nt petition is for quashing the final e posts of Clerk/Junior Assistant, date of birth, without taking into by the petitioners. the facts that the petitioners were ugh a selection committee in the during 01.01.0996- 30.01.1996 on later regularized through Punjab .05.2003. Upon circulation, the jected to on the ground that inter-se itial appointment and total service es Rules, not from the date of Department later opining in their ructions, the department proceeded ering the aforesaid, compelling the efore confirmation of their adverse PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. reference is another1, a regularized o their extende branding suc by age prece 09.09.2024 o clause 14(d) Industrial Tra amalgamated hierarchical p their profess judgement, as CWP-27451, In an endeavour to evaluate the ce is being made to Daljit Kumar , a case preferred at the hands ized on the same date but were accord xtended tenure of service within ng such a criterion as arbitrary, sough precedence, was not the accepted an 024 of which no LPA had arisen. It w 14(d) of the Punjab State Board o ial Training Service Rules, 2007, ins mated from diverse departmental en hical precedence shall be predicated u rofessional tenure. The findings as s ent, as relatable to the present case rea 12. The argument which h counsel for the petitioner in the into account the length of servic in order to frame seniority of th grant the benefit of adhoc servic not permissible and keeping in Government in similar circums the employees have been regula se seniority has been decided o employees on the date of regular petitioner being senior to the p the date when the services of the respondents. 13. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the petition lead to a very anomalous situatio 14. It is a conceded posi have longer length of servic compared to the petitioner. The length of service has a better 7451, decided on 09.09.2024 ate the aforesaid issue, a profitable umar vs. State of Punjab and hands of petitioners who were accorded inter se seniority based on ithin the department, contention, sought seniority to be determined ted and consequently dismissed on en. It was held therein that even in oard of Technical Education and 7, instances where individuals are ntal entities, the determination of ated upon the temporal duration of as summarised in the aforesaid ase read thus: hich has been raised by the learned in the present petition is that taking service of contractual appointment y of the employees will amount to service towards seniority, which is ing in view the fact that the State rcumstances where the services of regularized on the same date, inter ided on the basis of the age of the regularization of service, hence, the the private respondents in age on s of the petitioner as well as private ed that in case, the argument of the etitioner is accepted, the same will situation. d position that private respondents service on contractual basis as er. The employee, who has longer better claim for regularization of PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. service as compared to an emplo service on contractual basis. 15. The respondent-depar decided to regularize the serv irrespective to their length of Once, the services of all th petitioner as well as privat regularized on the same date, chosen by the respondent-Boa longer length of service on con benefit of seniority while frami the fact that the services of the respondents were regularized on 16. The claim of the petiti be decided on the basis of age a of service rendered on contractu to large number of employee respondent-Board for number o to the employees, who have contractual basis but are elder i an employee has 10 years of ser employee has 03 years of se regularization policy demands m and both the employees having service are regularized on the employee, who has 03 years of s elder in age cannot be granted employee having 10 years of ser when their services are regulariz 17. The criteria adopted decide the inter se seniority betw services were regularized on the perfectly valid and legal so as the employee, who has lesser len basis but is elder in age as com who has more length of servic merely that services of both the on the same date. 18. Further, the argumen the petitioner that treating an em of service on contractual basis giving benefit of adhoc service, is totally fallacious as the servic been regularized on the same purpose of fixing the inter se sen were regularized on the same adopted by the respondents to fr the basis of the length of serv benefit of adhoc/contractual se any employee. employee, who has lesser length of department in order to streamline, e services of all the employees th of service, on the same date. all the employees including the private respondents have been date, the criteria has rightly been Board that employee, who has on contractual basis will be given framing inter se seniority despite of the petitioner as well as private zed on the same date. e petitioner that the seniority should f age and not on the basis of length ntractual basis will cause prejudice ployees, who despite serving the ber of years will be treated junior have lesser length of service on elder in age. For instance, in case, of service to his credit and another of service to hiscredit and the ands minimum 03 years of service, having 10 years and 03 years of n the same date, merely that an ars of service to his/her credit but is anted seniority over and above the of service to his/her credit on date ularized. opted by the respondent-Board to ty between all the employees whose on the same date i.e. 29.07.2009 is so as to avoid the eventuality that ser length of service on contractual as compared to another employee, service, is to be treated as senior th the employees were regularized gument of the learned counsel for an employee, who has more length basis to be senior will amount to rvice, which is arbitrary and illegal, services of all the employees have same date and it is only for the se seniority of the employees, who same date, a criteria has been ts to frame the inter se seniority on f service on contractual basis and ual service has not been given to PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 19. It is not the case of t respondents have been regulariz as compared to the petitioner, prospectively. All the employee well as private respondent prospectively and hence, argume the petitioner that the criteria to between all the employees who on 29.07.2009 on the basis of rendered by them on contractual benefit of adhoc service, cannot . 20. As far as the reliance the judgment of the Division B Singh (supra), the same is also the benefit of seniority was bein contractual/adhoc service render In the present case, there is no private respondents. Further, in services of the particular set of on later date but they were claim their initial date of appointmen claim was rejected. 21. In the present ca has neither been given to th respondents but the same has on decide the inter se seniority of been regularized on the same d circumstances of the present cas Harpal Singh (supra) cannot b case of the petitioner. 22. At this stage, learned submits that the grant of respondents by taking into a rendered on contractual basis the Punjab State Board of Industrial Service Rules, 2007 For better understand reproduced as under:- “14. Seniority:-The sen appointed to posts in each determined by the length o post in that cadre of the Se Provided that in c direct appointment who specified in the order of period as may be extend appointing authority sub months from the date o order of merit determined Board, as the case may be se of the petitioner that the private gularized from retrospective effect tioner, who has been regularized ployees including the petitioner as ndents have been regularized argument of the learned counsel for eria to decide the inter se seniority s whose services were regularized sis of the total length of service ractual basis will amount to grant of annot be accepted. eliance which is being placed upon sion Bench of this Court in Harpal s also misplaced. In the said case, as being claimed with regard to the rendered by the petitioners therein. is no such grant of benefit to the her, in the said case, though, the set of employees were regularized claiming benefit of seniority from intment i.e. on adhoc basis, which ent case, benefit of adhoc service to the petitioner nor to private has only been taken into account to ity of all the employees, who have ame date. Hence, in the facts and nt case, the judgment in the case of not be made applicable upon the earned counsel for the petitioner nt of seniority to the private into account the length of service l basis will violate Rule-14 (d) of ard of Technical Education and , 2007. rstanding, the said Rule-14 is e seniority inter se of persons in each cadre of a Service shall be ength of continuous service on such the Service. t in case of persons recruited by t who join within the period der of appointment or within such xtended from time to time by the y subject to a maximum of four ate of order of appointment, the rmined by the Commission or the ay be, shall not be disturbed. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Provided further th next selection has joined concerned service before preceding proviso joins th placed below all the perso join within the time specif Provided further th persons appointed on th shall be determined as foll (a) a person appointed b senior to a person app (b) a person appointed b to a person appointed (c) in the case of person transfer, the senio according to the sen appointments from w transferred; and (d) in the case of person different cadres, determined accordin given to a person wh of pay in his previo rates of pay drawn ar length of service in t length of service is a shall be senior to a yo Note:- Seniority of provisional basis or determined as and appointed keeping regular appointment. 23. A bare perusal of the a adhoc service is not to be tak has to be given from th appointment is given. In the p position that the petitioner as have been given seniority fro date of regularization of their of the learned counsel for the adhoc service was given to incorrect. 24. In the present case, eve has not at all been violated counsel for the petitioner. 25. It is noticed that as per C seniority of employees, who transfer from different cadres clause is not applicable upon neither the petitioner nor the p appointed by way of transfe that in case any person of the joined a post in the cadre of the efore the person referred to in the oins the person so referred shall be e persons of the next selection who specified in the first proviso: ther that in the case of two or more on the same date, their seniority as follows:- nted by direct appointment shall be ppointed otherwise; inted by promotion shall be senior ointed by transfer; person appointed by promotion or seniority shall be determined he seniority of such persons in the from which they were promoted or persons appointed by transfer from res, their seniority shall be cording to pay, preference being son who was drawing a higher rate previous appointment, and if the awn are also the same, then by their ce in these appointments and if the ce is also the same, an older person to a younger person. ty of persons appointed on purely sis or on adhoc basis shall be s and when they are regularly ping in view the dates of such tment. the above rule would show that be taken into account and seniority m the date when the regular n the present case, it is a conceded ner as well as private respondents rity from 29.07.2009, which is the f their service and hence, argument for the petitioner that the benefit of en to the private respondents is e, even the note given to Rule 14 iolated as asserted by the learned s per Clause (d) of Rule 14 how the , who have appointed by way of cadres, is to be decided. The said upon the case of the petitioner as r the private respondents have been transfer as they were working on PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. contractual basis in the same been regularized on the same also not come into operation i 26. Further, even in clause 1 that where the persons are br the different department, their the basis of longer length of where the length of service is be adopted. 27. In the present case, it private respondents have m contractual basis as compared even if, Clause 14(d) is ma private respondents who have be treated senior to the petitio 28. At this stage, learned submits that respondents No.4 regularized as Information A from the post of Data Entry O Assistant and hence, the gra and above the petitioner is arb 29. It may be noticed that th regularization order dated 29. the present petition by which as well as respondents No.4 the said order, private respond regularized as Information A available with the petition seniority list was filed and aggrieved qua the regularizati as Information Assistant, noth the said order at any given present petition, the said order of respondents No.4 and 13 only argument is that they ca and above the petitioner. 30. It may be further notice reflection of appointment o regularization of respondents challenge, it cannot be said seniority in pursuance to the i.e. Annexure P/4 hence, the counsel for the petitioner cann 31. Learned counsel for the said plea was raised while fil list, which was not being decid 32. As noticed hereinabov order of private respondents a under challenge, the grant of cadre cannot be objected too once, appointment of the priv same cadre and their services have me date hence, Clause 14(d) will ation in the case of the petitioner. lause 14 (d), it has been mentioned are brought on the same date from t, their seniority is to be decided on th of service. It is only in the case vice is same, than, age criteria is to se, it is a conceded position that ave more length of service on pared to the petitioner and hence, is made applicable then also, the o have more length of service will petitioner under all circumstances. arned counsel for the petitioner ts No.4 and 13 could not have been tion Assistant by converting them ntry Operator to that of Information he grant of seniority to them over r is arbitrary and illegal. that the petitioner has attached the ed 29.07.2009 (Annexure P/4) with which, the service of the petitioner No.4 and 13 were regularized. In espondents No.4 and 13 have been tion Assistant. The said order was etitioner when the objection to and in case, the petitioner was arization of the private respondents t, nothing stopped him to challenge given point of time. Even in the d order of regularization of services nd 13 is not under challenge. The hey cannot be given seniority over noticed that the seniority is only a ent of an employee. Once, the ndents No.4 and 13 is not under said that they cannot be granted to the order of their regularization e, the said argument of the learned er cannot be accepted. for the petitioner submits that the ile filing objection to the seniority g decided by the respondents. inabove, once, the regularization ents as Information Assistant is not ant of seniority to them in the said ted too. Mere raising an objection he private respondents is not being PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4. seniority list aforemention counsel desp present petiti 6 months, in concerned. 09.01.2025 parveen kumar Whethe Whethe challenged, grant of seniority petitioner. 33. No other argument has 34. Keeping in view the noticed hereinbefoe, no grou Court is made out and the dismissed.” The case of the petitioner for ty list in consonance with the pr oned judgment is clearly made ou l despite best efforts was unable rais t petition is hereby disposed of, with a ths, in accordance with law, after ned. hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No hether reportable : Yes / No niority cannot be objected by the nt has been raised. the facts and circumstances as o ground for interference by this d the writ petition is accordingly er for reformulating the inter se the principles enunciated in the ade out, to which the learned State le raise any demurrer, as such, the with a direction to do the needful in after grant of opportunity to the (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE the Y) PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.16 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.