CWP No.8620 of 1990 (O&M) and connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.8620 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 Gursharanjit Kaur, Statistical Assistant, Punjab Agriculture Department, Sector-17, Chandigarh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (2) CWP No.16843 of 1989 (O&M) Pushpinder Brar, Field Assistant, Office of Statistician, Department of Agriculture, Jalandhar and another ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (3) CWP No.1766 of 1992 (O&M) Kanchan Prabha, Statistical Assistant, Punjab Agriculture Department , Sector-17, Chandigarh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (4) CWP No.18002 of 1991 (O&M) Pushpinder Brar, Field Assistant, Office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Department of Agriculture, Jalandhar and another ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CWP No.8620 of 1990 (O&M) and connected cases [2] (5) CWP No.11181 of 1992 (O&M) Mrs. Sarita Marwaha, Field Assistant, Office of Statistician, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, SCO No.50-51, Sector 17E, Chandigarh and another ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.18002 of 1991 & in CWP No.16843 of 1989 & for respondents No.6 & 7 in CWP No.8620 of 1990 & in CWP No.1766 of 1992. Mr. B.S. Jolly, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.1766 of 1992 & for respondent No.3 in CWP No.16843 of 1989 & in CWP No.11181 of 1992. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for the others. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 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 All these writ petitions advert to the setting the issue of seniority in the Department of Agriculture, State of Punjab amongst the employees appointed through a recruitment process and who were served with orders of appointment. The respective orders of the appointment to various employees specified a joining period and it is now not in dispute that the CWP No.8620 of 1990 (O&M) and connected cases [3] contest is amongst persons, who joined within 10 days, the period mentioned in the respective orders of appointment as joining period. 2. The various appointees had secured several promotion during this period by reckoning the seniority with reference to the orders of appointment, no matter when they actually joined within the stipulated joining period. The relative age amongst the employees, according to the Rules governed the issue of seniority. A different interpretation was sought to be given to the issue through a circular that stated that the date of joining of service alone would be relevant and not the orders of appointment. The orders of appointment contained two Clauses, which fall for consideration. The Clauses are reproduced as under: “(i) this order shall take effect from the date, when the candidates present themselves before the officers concerned for joining services. (ii) the candidates are directed that they should join their duties with officers concerned within a period of 10 days from the receipt of order and if any one fails to do so, his order shall stand cancelled.” 3. The construction, which is sought to be made by the State is that the orders of appointment would take effect from the date when the candidates presented themselves and this would include a reckoning also for seniority. This, in my view, is not appropriate and is done without giving proper meaning to Clause (ii), which allows the candidates to join within a period of 10 days and if any employee joined, therefore, on the 10th day, as per the contention of the State, he would be treated as junior to the candidates, who have joined on the first day. I would CWP No.8620 of 1990 (O&M) and connected cases [4] held this interpretation to be unjust and improper for understanding of how the seniority were to be reckoned. If candidates are allowed a joining time and if a person comes within that period, for the purpose of seniority, the order of merit and other things being equal, the age alone shall determine. It would be different if, there are two different dates of orders of appointment and candidates joined at different times. We are examining the issue of inter se seniority that emanates from a single order of appointment when candidates joined within the time specified. In such an event, it shall be the date of appointment that will dictate the issue of seniority and not the date of joining. This is also a just interpretation for otherwise a person, who was proximate to the place of appointment will steal a march over a person, who is far away from the place of appointment and by the only circumstance that he was not in the immediate proximity to the place of appointment, he would lose out his seniority. This would mean gross arbitrariness and discrimination in State action. A similar issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “P. Srinivas v. M. Radhakrishna Murthy and others, (2004)2 SCC 459”, where a candidate who had joined later but within the extended joining period was ordered to be placed higher on the seniority list on the basis of merit, over a candidate who had actually joined earlier. 4. These writ petitions address the issue of seniority only in the context of how it should be settled when the appointments are made through a single order providing the outer limit for joining. It is clarified that the cases do not address the issue of inter se seniority for various categories of employees such as ad hoc or permanent employees. 5. All the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction for CWP No.8620 of 1990 (O&M) and connected cases [5] reckoning of seniority in the manner referred to above and the reliefs sought in the respective petitions will follow the directions. 6. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE