IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8586 of 1991 Date of Decision : February 16, 2010. Harpal Singh Chhina .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pawan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr.O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is said to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and it seems that he may have lost interest in this litigation. This writ petition was filed in the year 1991 seeking a mandamus to direct the official respondents to grant him benefits of adhoc service towards seniority and place him above the private respondents in C.W.P.No .8586 of 1991 2 the cadre of Horticulture Inspectors re-designated as Horticulture Development Officers. The record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Inspector for a period of three months on adhoc basis and he joined as such on 21.8.1964. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board and he joined on regular basis on 8.11.1966. It is pertinent to mention here that most of the private respondents were directly recruited on the recommendations of the Subordinate Service Selection Board and they joined as such on different dates in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966. At the time when the private respondents had applied the petitioner also applied and took a chance for direct recruitment alongwith the private respondents but he was not selected in the years 1964 and 1965 though selected in the year 1966. The service conditions of the petitioners and the private respondents are governed by the “Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1933”. Rule 10 thereof provides that “the seniority of the members of the service shall be assigned in each class of appointment shown in the Appendix by the dates of their substantive appointment, on probation or otherwise to a permanent vacancy.......” Suffice it to observe that the petitioner became a member of the service only on his appointment on regular basis on probation against a permanent vacancy. The Rule, by implication, excludes the temporary/adhoc service for the purpose of seniority. Otherwise also, in C.W.P.No .8586 of 1991 3 the light of the fact that the petitioner was not selected for regular appointment in the years 1964 and 1965 even though he took a chance for the same, also dis-entitles him to claim seniority over and above the private respondents. The writ petition stands dismissed. 16-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE