IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.3962 of 2008. Reserved on: 06.09.2010. Decided on: 20.9.2010. __________________________________________________________ CWP(T) No.3962 of 2008. Devinder Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Trilok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.7. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has assailed the promotion of private respondents to the post of Naib Tehsildar from the feeder category of Kanungo made vide Annexure A-1/2 dated 15.6.1995. 2. Mr. Trilok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the seniority of the cadre of Kanungo is to be reckoned from the date the candidates are accepted as Kanungo. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the seniority of the cadre of Kanungo is to be determined when the candidate is appointed substantively as per Rule 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Kanungo Service Rules, 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. The conditions of service of the petitioner are governed under the Himachal Pradesh Kanungo Service Rules, 1951. Part-III of these Rules deals with the conditions of service. The method of appointment is prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules. Rule 12 prescribes the procedure for seniority of the members of the service. It reads thus:- “12. The seniority of the members of the service shall be determined by the State on their substantive appointment provided that if two or more members are appointed substantively on the same date their seniority shall be determined according to the orders in which their names are entered by the Director of Land Records in the list of Kanungos candidate maintained in his office.” 5. In the instant case, the petitioner was found suitable for acceptance as Kanungo after successful completion of Revenue/ Settlement/Field training as per order dated 23.1.1984 (Annexure A-2). Petitioner has completed four years training and thereafter he was offered the post of Kanungo in the pay scale of Rs. 520-880 vide office order dated 3.9.1988. A bare perusal of rule 12 quoted hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that the seniority of the members of the service is to be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment. In the instant case, the petitioner has been appointed substantively as Kanungo vide office order dated 3.9.1988. There is no merit in the contention of the - 3 - petitioner that the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of acceptance as Kanungo candidate. The acceptance of the petitioner as Kanungo has only entitled him to go through the training for a period of four years. It is only after the successful completion of training that the petitioner was offered the post of Kanungo. In view of this, the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment and not from the date when the petitioner was accepted as Kanungo vide letter dated 23.1.1984. 7. Mr. Trilok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in other sister services, the candidates’ seniority is determined from the date of acceptance as candidate. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Naib Tehsildari Service Rules, 1983 (Annexure A-6). Rule 20 thereof provides that the seniority of the candidates shall be determined from the date of substantive appointment in the post. Similarly, in Annexure A-7, the Himachal Pradesh Tehsildari Rules, 1953, the mode of determination of seniority is from the date of substantive appointment. 8. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have explained the expression ‘date of the order of substantive appointment to the service’ in Kailash Chand Joshi versus Rajasthan High Court and others, (2000) 10 SCC 463 as under (paras 2 & 3):- “The Rule relating to seniority is Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules. It reads as follows : "22. Seniority. - Subject to the other provisions of these Rules seniority in the Service shall be determined by the date of the order of substantive appointment to the service : Provided that the seniority of candidates appointed to the Service shall, in the case of appointment of more persons than one to the Service - 4 - by an order of the same date, follow the order in which they have been placed in the list prepared by the Commission under Rule 19." According to this Rule the date of substantive appointment determines seniority. The proviso, however, says that where more than one person is promoted by an order of the same date, their seniority in the promoted category shall be the same as their seniority in the lower category to which they were appointed through the Public Service Commission. It is not the case of the appellant that he and Respondents 3 to 11 were promoted to the category of Civil Judge under an order of the same date. Admittedly, the appellant was promoted on a later date to that of Respondents 3 to 11. In such a case, the proviso does not come into operation and according to the main limb of the Rule Respondents 3 to 11 are entitled to be and were rightly treated as seniors. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.” 9. Accordingly, in view of the observation made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 20.9.2010 *awasthi*.