IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14475 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 16.09.2009 Baljinder Singh Dahiya ... PETITIONER Versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who at present is working as Junior Engineer in Construction Branch, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, has filed the instant petition for quashing the promotion order dated 20.7.2009, whereby respondent No.3, who was also working as Junor Engineer, has been promoted to the post of SDO (Civil). It is the admitted position that the petitioner, respondent No.3 and one Rajesh Monga were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by way of direct recruitment against the advertisement dated 8.12.1992 (Annexure P- 2). It is also conceded position, as indicated in the information (Annexure P- 12), received by the petitioner from the respondent University, that the selection committee recommended respondent No.3, petitioner and Rajesh Monga, for appointment as Junior Engineer, and placed them at Sr. Nos. 1, CWP No. 14475 of 2009 -2- 2 and 3, respectively. It is also conceded position that promotion to the post of SDO (Civil) is to be made on the basis of seniority. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the promotion of respondent No.3 on the ground that he was junior to the petitioner, as they both joined the service on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the same day i.e. on 23.4.1993 and since in age, the petitioner is older to respondent No.3, therefore, he was senior to respondent No.3. This contention cannot be accepted, in view of Rule 11 of the Service Rules, which provides that the inter-se seniority of persons selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be in the order of merit, determined by the Selection Committee, irrespective of the date on which such a person joins or is confirmed subsequently. In the Rule, it is further provided that in case of two or more members, joining their posts on the same day, their seniority shall be determined as follows : (a) In the case of members recruited by direct recruitment, their seniority shall be in the order of merit assigned by the Selection Committee. (b) A member recruited by promotion shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise. (c) In the case of members recruited by promotion, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointment from which they were promoted.” In view of the aforesaid Rule, the age cannot be a factor for determining the seniority in case of the petitioner and respondent No.3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no criteria CWP No. 14475 of 2009 -3- fixed by the Selection Committee for fixing the merit, therefore, the recommendation of the Selection Committee in the year 1993 cannot be taken as a factor for determining the seniority. This contention also cannot be accepted. Once the Selection Committee recommended the names in a direct recruitment in order of merit, the seniority of selected candidates will be determined in order of the said merit, irrespective of their date of joining or their age. Furthermore, the petitioner did not challenge the merit position, when the Selection Committee recommended his name for appointment as Junior Engineer in order of merit in the year 1993. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual position, respondent No.3 has rightly been promoted to the post of SDO (Civil), being senior to the petition. No merit. Dismissed. September 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE