IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.18278 of 1996 Date of Decision:19.05.2011 S.L. Batra .....Petitioner Vs. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. And others .....Respondents CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Present:- Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) Petitioner to the present writ petition is challenging the order dated 7.10.1996 (Annexure P-8) vide which the representation preferred by the petitioner showing him junior to respondents No.2 to 20 was rejected primarily on the ground that there was a ratio of 50-50 prescribed between direct recruits and promotees. The petitioner, who is a direct recruit could not be placed senior to the promotees because of the said ratio fixed in the resolution passed by the Board of Directors. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the seniority is governed by Rule 2.16 of the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees Common Cadre Service Rules, 1990 (for short, `the Rules') which only states that seniority inter-se would be determined in each cadre by length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the service. He contends that the petitioner was appointed as an C.W.P. No.18278 of 1996 -2- Assistant Accounts Officer on 1.1.1980 whereas respondents No.2 to 20 were appointed as Assistant Accounts Officers on 27.11.1980. As the petitioner had joined much prior to respondent Nos.2 to 20, in the light of the statutory rules governing the seniority, the petitioner would rank senior to the private respondents. Another prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of service as an Ex- Serviceman which was not granted to him either on the post of an Accountant on which he was initially appointed or against the post of Assistant Accounts Officer where he was subsequently appointed as both these posts are under same employer. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Only one written statement has been filed and i.e. by respondent No.1, -- The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as “the Markfed”). A perusal of the reply would indicate that the only ground taken for not granting the petitioner seniority over the private respondents is that the resolution was passed by the Board of Directors which provided a 50-50 ratio for direct recruits and promotees. Post Nos.1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 were reserved for the promotees and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to seniority over and above the private respondents. As regards the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of the military service rendered by him, it was specifically stated that the petitioner was not appointed against the post of Ex-serviceman and, therefore, is not entitled to the said benefit. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. C.W.P. No.18278 of 1996 -3- Seniority inter-se of the members of the service is governed by Rule 2.16 of the Rules which fact has been admitted by the respondents in para 2 of their written statement. Rule 2.16 reads as follows:- “2.16: The seniority inter-se of the members of the service(s) in each cadre shall be determined by length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the service. Provided- xx xx xx xx” A perusal of the Rule leaves no manner of doubt that the seniority inter-se of the members of the service in each cadre has to be determined by length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of service. By applying the said Rule, since the petitioner had joined on 1.1.1980 and respondents No.2 to 20 on 27.11.1980, the petitioner would rank senior to them. Merely because a ratio of 50-50 has been provided for direct recruits and promotees cannot be made the basis of disentitling the petitioner, the claim of his statutory right as per the statutory rules. The resolutions passed by the Board of Directors cannot supersede the rules which are statutory in nature and unless the said rules hold the field, any instructions/ resolutions of the Board of Directors contrary to the statutory rules cannot be given precedence over them. Thus, the impugned order dated 7.10.1996 (Annexure P-8) cannot be sustained. As regards the claim of the petitioner for grant of military service benefits, suffice it to say that the petitioner was not appointed against a reserved post of Ex-Serviceman and further the petitioner would have been entitled to the said benefit on his first appointment as an Accountant, which post he resigned to take up the direct recruitment on the C.W.P. No.18278 of 1996 -4- post of Assistant Accounts Officer and thus this claim cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed, the impugned order dated 7.10.1996 Annexure P-8 is hereby quashed and the petitioner is declared senior to respondent Nos.2 to 20. The consequential benefits to follow. May 19, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) renu JUDGE