IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.45 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:20.1.2010 Surender Singh Sandhu -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjiv K.Tamak, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against change of his seniority. 2. Case of the appellant is that he joined service in the Irrigation department and in the year 1989, he was assigned a particular seniority. On that basis, he was given current duty charge of the post of Sub Divisional Officer in the year 2007. A complaint was made by his colleague pointing out that his seniority was wrongly fixed and LPA No.45 of 2010 (O&M) therefore, current duty charge could not be given. A Show Cause Notice was given to the appellant on 25.1.2008 requiring him to show why his seniority position be not changed. Thereafter, order dated 18.2.2008, Annexure P.8 was passed down-grading the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of merit list prepared at the time of selection. He challenged down-grading of seniority by submitting that settled state of affairs should not be disturbed after 20 years. This was contested on behalf of the State relying upon the HSE Class II PWD (Irrigation Branch) Service Rules 1970, which provide that seniority is to be assigned on the basis of list prepared by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant was placed higher in seniority by inadvertent clerical mistake and correction thereof could not be held to be illegal and arbitrary. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that higher seniority was assigned by mistake as he was below the contesting respondent in the seniority list prepared by the Subordinate Services Selection Board as held by the learned Single Judge. 6. Only contention raised is that down-grading of seniority after long time was not justified. 2 LPA No.45 of 2010 (O&M) 7. We are unable to accept this submission. There is no doubt that unsettling settled seniority is not normally permissible by entertaining belated challenge to seniority but this principle cannot be stretched against correcting an inadvertent error. Learned Single Judge has discussed the judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellant being K.R.Mudgal and others v. RP Singh and others, (1986) 4 SCC 531, Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) SCT 525, Madan Lal v.Union of India, 1997 (3) SCT 381, Indraj Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(4) SCT 764 and V.M.Radhakrishnan Nair and others v. State of Kerala and others, 1988 (3) SLR 693 and distinguished their applicability to the present case as these cases do not relate to correction of inadvertent clerical error. This view has not been shown to be erroneous. 8. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. 3 LPA No.45 of 2010 (O&M) 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if seniority of the appellant is down-graded, he may be entitled to continue on the current duty charge even as per revised seniority. If this is so, the appellant will be at liberty to represent to the concerned authority and such authority may look into the matter in accordance with law. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 20, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Jud 4