CM-8478-LPA-2025; CM-5386-LPA-2023; CM-5385-LPA-2023; in/and LPA-2147-2023 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104+221) CM-8478-LPA-2025 CM-5386-LPA-2023; CM-5385-LPA-2023; in/and LPA-2147-2023 Date of Decision : 21.07.2026 Manjit Kaur ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-5386-LPA-2023 1. The present application has been filed for seeking condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. 2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 100 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA-2147-2023 (O&M) 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.14006 of 2018 SHUBHAM titled as ‘Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Another’ by which, the claim 2026.07.27 14:17 I am the author of this document CM-8478-LPA-2025; CM-5386-LPA-2023; CM-5385-LPA-2023; in/and LPA-2147-2023 2 | P a g e for appointment from retrospective effects raised after 17 years of the appointment has been rejected. 2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. 3. The advertisement was issued by the Punjab Government on 19.08.1992 for the appointment to the post of Lecturers in the various subjects. While making the selection, the selection beyond the number of vacancies advertised were made and it is a conceded fact that the appointment of the appellants herein was made on one such post which was beyond the advertisement. 4. The said appointments were challenged before this court in CWP No.5985 of 1994 titled as ‘Yashwinder Singh Rana v. State of Punjab and Others’ in which writ petition came to be decided vide order dated 28.09.1994, while holding that, any appointment that has been made as per the advertised post is to be treated as illegal and the same were set aside. Consequently, the appointment of the appellant which was beyond the advertised post, was set aside and regular appointment was changed into 89 days basis which was ultimately terminated on 13.11.1997. 5. Thereafter, the appellant remained without job till the year 1999, the respondent-State promulgated Punjab Recruitment of Teachers Ordinance, 1999 (replaced by Punjab Recruitment Teachers Act 1999) and as per 1999 Ordinance, the Lecturer who were appointed against the post which was beyond the advertisement, were again appointed on contractual basis vide this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 04.08.1999, which contractual SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 14:17 I am the author of this document CM-8478-LPA-2025; CM-5386-LPA-2023; CM-5385-LPA-2023; in/and LPA-2147-2023 3 | P a g e appointment continued for a long time and ultimately, the same was regularize on 29.04.2014 while regularizing the services of the appellant, the same was prospective in nature. 6. No grievance was raised for a period of four years and ultimately, the present writ petition was filed by the appellant in the year 2018 so as to claim that once her services have been regularized in 2014, she could be seniority from 1994 when she was initially appointed on the said post and the said claim has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that once her appointment had already been set aside by the Competent Court of law and it was under 1999 Ordinance, she was appointed in the year 2001 again, raising a grievance that she should be allowed to have seniority from the year 1991 is belated and cannot be accepted. The writ petition was dismissed which has led to the filing of the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once, on the post of Lecturer her appointment has been regularized in the year 2014, she has to be given the benefit of earlier service rendered qua seniority so as to be granted further promotion. Learned counsel further submits that such benefits has wrongly been denied not only by the State but also the claim raised before learned Single Judge has also been denied without appreciating the correct facts and therefore, direction be given to the State to grant her the benefit of seniority from the year 1999 with all consequential benefits. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 14:17 I am the author of this document CM-8478-LPA-2025; CM-5386-LPA-2023; CM-5385-LPA-2023; in/and LPA-2147-2023 4 | P a g e 9. It may be noticed that in case, the relief claimed by the appellant is to be granted, then her appointment is to be treated as valid from the year 1994. It is a conceded position that her appointment made in the year 1994 has been set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in 1994. The said order has already attained finality and it was thereafter, that in pursuance to the Ordinance passed in the year 1999, the appellant was appointed on contract basis in which her services were only regularized in the year 2014. Hence, the grant of seniority from 1994 would mean to nullify the order passed by the Division Bench dated 29.09.1994 passed in CWP No.5984 of 1994 in Yashwinder Singh Rana (supra) by which the selection and appointment of the appellant had already been set aside being arbitrary and illegal. 10. Even otherwise, the continuance on regular basis of the appellant is based upon the order passed in the year 2014 regularizing her services. The said order cannot mean that her services has to be regularize with retrospective effect so as to cause prejudice to the employees who have already been recruited from 1999 onwards till 2014. Further, it is a conceded position before this Court, that in the seniority position, which is based upon the date of regularization, the appellant has not gained any such seniority to claim to the post of Principal. Any change in the seniority can only be done in case, all the affected parties are before this Court. In the present case not only the seniority list has not been impugned but also none of the person before whom, the appellant seek seniority from 1999 is before this Court. Hence, no relief can be granted even otherwise to the appellant in the SHUBHAM absence of the necessary parties. 2026.07.27 14:17 I am the author of this document CM-8478-LPA-2025; CM-5386-LPA-2023; CM-5385-LPA-2023; in/and LPA-2147-2023 5 | P a g e 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has raised that once the appellant was appointed on contract basis in the year 1999 and she has working continued till her regularization, the earlier service is to be treated for all intents and purposes including seniority and for the grant of increment. It may be noticed that the earlier service can only be taken into account for the grant of pensionary benefits and not for grant of seniority and increment. The law on the issue is settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association, (2000) 8 SCC 4, decided on 19.09.2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ad hoc appointment cannot be treated as a valid service for the grant of seniority as well as the grant of the benefit of increment and ACP. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the same. 12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be treated as perverse or contrary to the settled principle of law, hence, no interference of this Court is called for in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 21, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 14:17 I am the author of this document