RSA No.1456 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1456 of 1985 Date of Decision: 18.9.2008 A.P. Vinayak .....Appellant Vs. Haryana Agricultural University Hissar and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.M.S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondent no.1. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant, an Assistant working in the office of Professor and Head of Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Hissar Agricultural University, Hissar, challenges the judgements and decrees dated 31.5.1983 and 1.8.1984 passed by the Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Hissar and the Additional District Judge, Hissar, respectively. The appellant, joined the erstwhile Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, as a Steno-typist on 22.8.1964 at its Hissar Campus. He was appointed as a Junior Scale Stenographer, vide order dated 6.3.1965 and joined as such on 10.3.1965. He was promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 23.1.1971. It appears from the facts that as the appellant did not pass the Senior Scale Stenography type test, the respondents proposed to revert him to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer. However, as in the meanwhile his juniors were promoted, the RSA No.1456 of 1985 2 respondent thought it proper to transfer the appellant to the post of Assistant vide order dated 29.1.1971. The order dated 29.1.1971 states that the appellant's seniority would be reckoned from 23.1.1971. A provisional seniority list of Senior Scale Stenographers appointed from 25.1.1971 to 20.9.1971 was drawn up and circulated. The appellant filed objections to the seniority list, which were rejected. In the final seniority list circulated on 13.5.1977, the appellant was placed at Sr.No.56. Aggrieved by the seniority list, the appellant filed a suit, praying that he be granted seniority with effect from 23.1.1971, in terms of the order dated 29.1.1971. The respondent opposed the suit by asserting that instead of reverting him, the appellant was granted a concession and promoted to the post of Assistant. The order that the appellant's seniority would be reckoned from 23.1.1971 violates the University Statutes that govern inter-se seniority and cannot be invoked by the appellant. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.10.80 is illegal, bad in law, ineffective and is liable to be struck down on the ground alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD. 5. Relief.” After a considered appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial Court dismissed the RSA No.1456 of 1985 3 suit. Aggrieved by the said judgement, the appellant filed an appeal. The appeal met the same fate, as it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (III), Hissar. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have held that the appellant is not entitled to reckon his seniority from 23.1.1971 as his seniority is to be calculated from 21.9.1971, the date of his appointment as an Assistant. Counsel for the appellant submits that order appointing the appellant as an Assistant, is specific in its import that the appellant's seniority would be reckoned from 23.1.1971. The order was passed as the appellant was admittedly promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971 and only adjusted against the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971. Both the Courts below committed an error in discarding this part of the order and holding that the appellant could not draw any benefit, as this order violated statute 8 of the University Statues. Counsel for the respondent, however, asserts that the Courts below have appreciated the facts, the relevant statutes that govern the functioning of the University and have returned concurrent findings of fact that the appellant's seniority would be reckoned from the date of his continuous appointment to the post of Assistant i.e. 21.9.1971. It is further submitted that in view of the judgement in RSA No.348 of 1974 (S.L.Arora, Assistant Registrar, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar V. Gian Singh and others) decided on 28.8.1974 that these posts are not inter changeable, the appellant's appointment to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971, cannot be counted as continuous appointment to the post of Assistant, as the appellant was appointed as an Assistant on 21.9.1971. RSA No.1456 of 1985 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. The trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have held that as the appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971, he could not take advantage of his appointment as a Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971. It was held that as these two posts were not inter changeable, the appointment of the appellant to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971 would not count for the purpose of computing his continuous service on the post of Assistant. I find no reason, whether in law or in fact, to interfere with these concurrent findings. The University's Statute prescribe that inter-se seniority shall be determined by the date of continuous appointment to the post. The appellant was admittedly appointed to the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971. In RSA No.348 of 1974 S.L. Arora V. Gian Singh (supra), while considering a similar controversy, relating to the respondent University, it was held that the posts of Senior Scale Stenographer and Assistant are not inter changeable. The appellant was appointed to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971 and thereafter by way of a separate order, he was appointed to the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971. As these posts are not inter changeable, the appellant would not be entitled to reckon his seniority from the date of his appointment as a Senior Scale Stenographer. Though, the order appointing him as an Assistant states that the appellant's seniority would be reckoned from 25.1.1971, he cannot draw any benefit therefrom, as it is contrary to University's Statute no.8, which provides that seniority would be reckoned from the date of continuous appointment. As the appellant was appointed as an Assistant on 21.9.1971, RSA No.1456 of 1985 5 it was rightly held that his seniority would be reckoned from 21.9.1971. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned judgements do not suffer from any error of fact or of law, as would require interference, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 18.9.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE