IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6702 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:30.03.2011 Gulab Singh and others. ....Petitioners. versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petition is for a direction to the respondents that the petitioners should be treated as re-appointed retrospectively and the seniority must also be re-fixed with reference to a deemed date of appointment. 2. The petitioners were all Art & Craft teachers and appointed on ad hoc basis. They were all terminated due to unavailability of posts in November/December, 1984. It appears that the government framed a policy where it said that as and when vacancies arose, the principle of Civil Writ Petition No.6702 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - 'first come last go' was to be applied and persons must be granted appointment in the same seniority dependent on when the termination was effected. This was not followed and, therefore, a writ petition came to be filed. After the filing of the petition, the government made a concession and offered them employment and this Court passed an order in CWP No.1990 of 1987 taking on board the statement made on behalf of the State by the Additional Advocate General that they would be reinstated if posts are available and only thereafter fresh appointments will be made by going through employment exchange. Subsequent to this order, it appears that all the petitioners were appointed initially on ad hoc basis by proceedings dated 18.10.1989 and subsequently confirmed in the respective posts. 3. There exists a difference between persons, who obtained employment which is in the nature of a fresh appointment and cases where termination is found to be illegal and there is a reinstatement. In the latter case, it could be taken that there is a continuity of service and the seniority could be taken from the original date of entry. In the former, if the termination is effected on account of post being rendered surplus or due to non-availability of work and subsequently reappointment is made on the principle of 'first come last go', the appointment granted on such policy will take effect from the date of such appointment and the earlier service can have no value for determination of seniority. The petitioners, who have been granted appointment on the issuance of policy by the State for reappointment, cannot be taken as a reinstatement to render the past service as relevant for counting the Civil Writ Petition No.6702 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - seniority. The prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be accommodated. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.03.2011 sanjeev