CWP No.11711 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11711 of 2002 Date of decision : 13-09-2010 Sh. Daya Nand and others .... Petitioners VERSUS Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Fifteen Assistants posted in the Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani have assailed Order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P- 13) whereby Ganga Ram – respondent No.4 was assigned seniority above them at serial No. 95A. The grievance of the petitioners is that Ganga Ram – respondent No.4 cannot be made senior to them once promotion was denied to him on the ground that the service record was not good. Briefly stated in the cadre of Clerk, Ganga Ram was admittedly senior to the petitioners. Petitioners were promoted as Assistants vide order dated 20.07.1990 (Annexure P-1). The promotion order (Annexure P-1) states that Ganga Ram – respondent No.4 has been CWP No.11711 of 2002 -2- ignored as his service record was not good. Later on 6.09.1990 vide Annexure P-2 Ganga Ram was also promoted but the question regarding his seniority was kept open to be decided later. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-3 on 10.01.1995 provisional seniority list was circulated and Ganga Ram – respondent No.4 was shown below the petitioners. Thereafter, hearing the objections, final seniority list was circulated and seniority of the Ganga Ram – respondent No.4 was again reflected below the petitioners. Aggrieved against the same, Ganga Ram submitted representation dated 13.08.1996 (Annexure P-7) and the same was rejected by the Board vide Annexure P-8 on 27.03.1997. Ganga Ram again submitted representation dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure P-9) and this time this representation was accepted and it was held that Ganga Ram is to be assigned seniority No.95A instead of Seniority No.132 above the petitioners. This act of the respondents was assailed by the petitioners by filing CWP No.2070 of 2000. The writ petition was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court by passing the following order:- “The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 concedes that before-ever impugned order annexure P- 11, was passed, the petitioners were not given any opportunity. He also states that this order will be recalled and they will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after affording opportunity not only to the petitioners but also to all others who are affected by this impugned order annexure P-11 to put forward their respective cases. Accordingly we disposed of this petition as having become infructuous in view of the concession made by the CWP No.11711 of 2002 -3- learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 will pass appropriate orders withdrawing the impugned order annexure P-1 within a period of One week from today.” In consonance with the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, the order dated 10.01.2000 (Annexure P-10) was withdrawn. To comply with the order of this Court, opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and to respondent No.4. Thereafter, Chairman of the Board passed order on 15.04.2002 and reiterated Annexure P-10 and held that Ganga Ram is to be reckoned senior to the petitioners. Counsel for the Board has stated that service record of Ganga Ram was found good. Therefore, seniority was maintained as he was senior to the petitioners in the cadre of Clerks. However, on observation made by this Court that order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-13) is cryptic and has not considered the arguments advanced by the petitioners, counsel for the respondent – Baord is not able to defend this order and has very candidly stated that order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-13) cannot be described as speaking order. A perusal of order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-13) reveals that no application of mind is apparent. It is a simply executive fleet once the Court has granted opportunity to the petitioners to be heard and they have advanced their arguments. It was incumbent for the Authority to notice those arguments and state reasons as to why those arguments are liable to be rejected. The authority was also bound to state reasons for which the seniority CWP No.11711 of 2002 -4- of Ganga Ram – respondent No.4 was maintained. Therefore, this Court is of view that opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners by this Court was not a mere formality. Thus order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-13) is set aside. The Chairman of the Board is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording hearing to all concerned. It is expected that at this time order will be speaking. However, the petitioners and respondent No.4 may also supplement their arguments by submitting written arguments. Disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 13-09-2010 JUDGE manju