C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 Date of Decision : 14.01.2008 Ved Parkash Jhingan .....Petitioner versus Panjab University and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.N.Raina, Advocate for respondent Nos.4, 6 & 11. Shri P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.9. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-19 dated 1.3.2006, whereby the claim of the petitioner for assigning seniority from the date of availability of the vacancy meant for direct recruit was declined. Vide advertisement dated 17.2.1999, one post of Assistant Registrar to be filled up by direct recruitment, was advertised. The vacancy meant by direct recruitment was to fall vacant on 1.5.1999. The petitioner was recommended for appointment pursuant to the interview held on 11.3.2000 for such post. The Senate cancelled the recommendation even when the Syndicate has not considered the recommendation. The decision of the Senate became subject matter of challenge before this Court in a writ C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 2 petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2002, Annexure P-3 and liberty was given to the competent authority of the University to take a decision based on record and after due application of mind. At that time, the grievance of the petitioner was that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in contravention of the Rules. Subsequent to the directions of this Court, the Senate approved the recommendation on 24.8.2004 recommending the petitioner for direct appointment. The petitioner joined soon thereafter in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 28.8.2004, Annexure P-11. It is the case of the petitioner that another post, meant to be filled up by promotion, fell vacant in May, 2000. The grouse of the petitioner is that he is entitled to seniority from the date the post meant to be filled up by direct recruitment became available on 1.5.1999 and not from the date of his recruitment in the year 2004. The said claim of the petitioner has been declined by the University by passing a detailed speaking order dated 1.3.2006, Annexure P-19. The claim of the petitioner for seniority from the date of availability of the post of direct recruit, is based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as “Arvinder Singh Bains Versus State of Punjab and others, 2006 (3) RSJ-390” and a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed on 3.2.1997 in Civil Writ Petition No.15424 of 1995, titled as “Dr.H.S.Banyal Versus The Panjab University and another”, Annexure P-16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 3 do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The Panjab University Calendar Rules Vol.III-2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are the applicable Rules. Rule 15.1 of the Rules reads as under:- “15.1 An employee shall rank for seniority in the grade according to date of his confirmation.” Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 4 (iii) of the Rules, wherein 25% posts of the Assistant Registrars in the University are required to be filled in on the basis of selection after advertisement, whereas 75% of the posts of Assistant Registrars shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the Superintendents and the Personal Assistants on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the ratio of 4:1. The said Rule 4 (iii) of the Rules reads as under:- “4. Procedure of appointment and qualifications for recruitment of Class-A posts:- iii) Assistant Registrars:- (a) 25% of the posts of Assistant Registrars in the University office shall be filled in on the basis of selection after advertisement. The following qualifications for these posts to be filled by selection shall be:- Essential xx xx xx xx xx xx Desirable xx xx xx (b) The other 75% of the posts of Assistant Registrars shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the Superintendents and the Personal Assistants on the basis of seniority- cum-merit in the ration of 4:1. C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 4 The officiating arrangements, if any, against these 75% posts be made from the respective cadres on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the cadre concerned. In the case of a vacancy against selection post, officiating arrangements be made as under:- (a) First two vacancies will go to the Superintendents cadre and (b) The third vacancy will be filled in from P.As. Cadre. The 25 : 75 ration as at (a) and (b) shall not be disturbed. Whenever new posts are created in future i.e. in addition to existing 18 posts (as on 16.11.1990), the first will go to the Superintendents cadre, the second will be filled in by open selection, the third will go to the Superintendents cadre and the fourth to the P.As. Cadre. This pattern shall be followed in future.” It is, thus, sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the vacancy meant to be filled up by direct recruitment became available on 1.5.1999 and that 25% of the posts of Assistant Registrars are to be filled in on the basis of selection after advertisement, therefore, according to Rule 4 of the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date when the vacancy became available i.e. on 1.5.1999. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the seniority is to be determined from the date when the vacancy became C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 5 available, is not sustainable. Rule 15.1. of the Rules itself speaks that an employee shall rank for seniority in the grade according to the date of his confirmation. The seniority points in the Cadre of the Assistant Registrars are not fixed either for the direct recruits or for the promotes. Therefore, the rotational Rule read by the petitioner in the seniority Rule is not sustainable. In Arvinder Singh Bains case (supra), the Court was seized of Rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch Class-I) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the '1976 Rules'). As per the said Rules, the vacancies were required to be filled up from specific source in a slab of 100 vacancies. The appellant, in the aforesaid case, has not sought any ante dated promotion, but sought fixation of inter se seniority of 80 officers i.e. 40 direct recruits and 40 promotees by applying the roster provided for in Rule 18 of 1976 Rules. The Court found that the roster under Rule 18 has to be read with Rule 21 of 1976 Rules for determining the seniority. The decision in the aforesaid case has no application in the present case. There is no Rule corresponding to Rule 18 of 1976 Rules, contemplating roster. Rule 15.1 of the Seniority Rules contemplates seniority from the date of confirmation. Therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date of availability of vacancy, does not find support from the judgment referred to by him. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr.H.S.Banyal's case (supra) is again arising out of different facts. This Court found that Dr.H.S.Banyal has been wrongly excluded from the selection by excluding C.W.P.No.9686 of 2006 6 his research work. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was qualified for the post and, therefore, his non-selection is unjustified. While considering the order passed by this Court, the Syndicate resolved to grant seniority to Dr.Banyal from the date another appointment was made in pursuance of the same selection process. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed on 28.8.2004. He was the sole candidate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim seniority prior to the date of his appointment and from the date when he was not borne on the Cadre. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 14-01-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE