IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6050 of 2006 Date of Decision: March 31,2008 Jagtar Singh ..........................................................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia Present: Mr. N.S.Swaitch, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Advocate. Mr. A.D.S. Jatana, Advocate. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to re-fix his seniority from the date of his batchmates who were appointed in the year 1993 along with all consequential benefits in pursuance to the judgment dated 5.8.1996 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No. 19250 of 1994. Briefly the facts of the case are that in pursuance to advertisement issued by respondent No.4 on 7.6.1993, the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk in the category of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner appeared for interview on 22.6.1993. Respondent No.4 filled up 12 posts of Clerks against the 7 posts which were advertised. However, all the selected candidates were selected from the general category and no person was selected from the reserved category. The petitioner challenged the selection order by filing C.W.P. No. 10367 of 1994. However, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the petitioner filed SLP No. 19250 of 1994 in which a statement was made on behalf of respondent No.4 i.e. Municipal Council, Samrala, that they will [ 2 ] C.W.P. No. 6050 of 2006 appoint the petitioner against a regular post. The operative part of the order of the Supreme Court reads as under:- “The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 will be appointed against regular vacancies within the course of this month. In view of such statement no further order need be passed and the petition is disposed of.” In pursuance to the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court the petitioner was issued appointment letter (Annexure P-3) on 28.8.1996 i.e. in the same month in which the special leave petition was disposed of. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as all the other batchmates of the petitioner have been appointed in the year 1993, therefore, he should also be deemed to have been appointed from the date his batchmates were appointed. A perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 19250 of 1994 decided on 5.8.1996 shows that the petitioner was to be appointed within the course of the month. In accordance with the aforementioned directions the petitioner was appointed on 28.8.1996 i.e. within the month of August itself. There were no directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the appointment of the petitioner would be deemed to have been made from the date his batchmates were appointed. In view of the aforementioned facts, there is no ground to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner from the date his batchmates were appointed. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) 31.3.2008 JUDGE rupi