IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14014 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 09, 2009 Damanjit Kaur Walia .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Damanjit Kaur Walia has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P-11) whereby claim of the petitioner has been declined for counting the adhoc service rendered during leave vacancy period for the purposes of seniority. Further, prayer is for refixation of seniority of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner was appointed as Lady Assistant Superintendent in Central Jail, Ludhiana on 17.11.1988 on leave CWP No.14014 of 2009 [2] vacancy post after interview. The petitioner joined duty on adhoc basis on 22.11.1988. It has been pleaded that on 1.4.1989, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis and remained in the same department. In May 1989, Departmental Selection Committee was constituted to make selection out of temporary/ adhoc employees as well as other eligible candidates. The petitioner was selected by the Departmental Selection Committee as Assistant Superintendent and she joined her duty on 18.5.1989. Respondent No.4 namely Sanehjot Dhawan was also selected who joined duty on 28.5.1989. Perusal of Annexure P-11 indicates that in deference to the orders of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4850 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, representation of the petitioner has been decided. In the impugned order, it has been noticed that the petitioner had joined as Assistant Superintendent on temporary basis in place of Paramjit Kaur, who had proceeded on earned leave. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.3.1989 on return of Paramjit Kaur from leave. Order further makes it evident that Selection Committee placed the private respondent (No.4) at Serial No.1 in the merit list whereas the petitioner was placed at Serial CWP No.14014 of 2009 [3] No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that private respondent was placed higher in merit by the Selection Committee. So far as claim of seniority on consideration of adhoc service is concerned, the case of the petitioner would be covered against him by judgment dated 20.2.2001 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab & Others vs. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal & Others, 2001(3) SLR 256 wherein the following has been held in Para 4 and 6:- “4. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the period of ad hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service for giving higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme. This question was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and another, JT 2000(10) SC 561 : [2000(5) SLR 223 (SC)] wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad hoc service. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary AHTS Association and another [2000(5) SLR 223 (SC)] (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the cases in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/orders passed by the High Court holding that ad hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay are unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgments/orders of the High Court under challenge are set aside.” Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that adhoc CWP No.14014 of 2009 [4] service cannot be counted for seniority purpose and also considering that the private respondent was placed higher in merit by the Selection Committee, I do not find that petitioner has any right to claim relief in writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 09, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?