IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8550 of 1991 Date of decision:17.03.2010 Manjit Singh and others ....Petitioners versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate, for Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for Mr.Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners, seeks for adjournment. The case is of the year 1991 and the issue relates to placement of the petitioners in a seniority list which, according to him, has been wrongly done. I reject the prayer for an adjournment and proceed to pass this order with the help of the records and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners' claim in the writ petition is that they had served as Clerks on ad hoc posts and when the seniority list was drawn, the original entry into service when they were working as ad hoc Clerks, had not been taken into account and the seniority list has been drawn up Civil Writ Petition No.8550 of 1991 - 2 - only from the date when they were regularized. 3. Counsel appearing for the University refers me to Rule 4(iii) for Class-B posts given at page 84 of the Panjab University Calendar, Volume III (1990). The procedure for appointment and qualification for recruitment of Class-B posts for Steno-typists and Clerks is mentioned as follows:- “(iii) Steno-typists and Clerks: These posts shall be filled through competitive tests and on the recommendation of a Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor every year.” From the above Rule, it seems clear that the appointment of a Clerk would be possible only on certain competitive tests and in this case, admittedly, the petitioners had not cleared the test initially and that was why, they held the ad hoc posts and as soon as they passed the competitive test, they were regularized. The issue of seniority cannot obtain to the petitioners from the date when they held the ad hoc posts especially when they were not qualified. If on qualification, they were regularized, it could only be the date of regularization that could rank them as fit for to be considered for being placed in the seniority list. The list drawn up cannot be assailed by the petitioners for the reasons given by them. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioners had not even objected to the tentative seniority list which was published. The challenge of the petitioners ought to fail on that ground. 4. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) 17.03.2010 JUDGE sanjeev