L.P.A. No. 253 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 30th , 2009. Parties Name Rameshwar Dass ...APPELLANT. VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Jasbir Singh, J. Judgment. Appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge on August 1, 2007, vide which Civil Writ Petitions No. 9949 of 1988 and 10239 of 1991 were dismissed. This order shall also dispose of letters patent appeals No. 253 and 254 of 2007, as common questions of facts and law are involved and both the appeals arise out of one impugned judgment. For facility of dictating judgment, L.P.A. No. 253 of 2007 -2- facts are being taken from LPA No. 253 of 2007. Record reveals that the appellant claimed that he was senior to respondents No. 5 and 6 in service, as such he was entitled to get selection grade in preference to them. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9949 of 1988, in which it was his prayer that on completion of 15 years of regular service, as a Science Master w.e.f. July 27, 1985, the above said benefit be released in his favour. In CWP No. 10239 of 1991, he prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order dated April 11, 1991, vide which, respondent No. 5 Randhir Singh, who was junior to him, was wrongly absorbed as Headmaster in Government service, when Janta High School was taken over by the Government. Upon notice, reply was filed by the respondents, wherein by making reference to date of joining in service of all the contesting employees and their date of improving the qualifications by getting B.Ed. Degree, it was stated that the appellant was junior in service, as compared to respondent No. 5 and 6. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, found it as a matter of fact that the appellant joined service, as untrained Teacher, after respondents No. 5 and 6. He also improved his qualification, by getting degree of B.Ed. after them. By noting the provisions of Rule 9 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Rules, 1974, it was opined that the petitioner was junior to the respondents, referred to above, and accordingly claim raised in both the writ petitions was rejected and the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence these appeals. Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the following facts before us: L.P.A. No. 253 of 2007 -3- Name: Date of joining as untrained Date of acquiring Master higher qualification(BEd) Rameshwar 27-7-1970 27-6-1975 Dass (Petitioner) Randhir 17-10-1968 22-8-970 Singh (Respondent No. 5) Lachhman 2-9-1966 22-7-1971” Dass (Respondent No. 6) The above shows clearly that claim of seniority, raised by the appellant, was untenable. He joined as a Master (untrained) after Randhir Singh and Lachhman Dass and also improved his qualifications, after them. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that on April 24, 1969, service of Randhir Singh, respondent No. 5, was terminated. He was taken back in service after a gap of 14 months, i.e., on August 22, 1970. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that if this time gap is not counted in service, the petitioner will certainly become senior to respondent No. 5 Randhir Singh. We fail to appreciate that argument. Before the learned Single Judge, no such plea was raised. It is also not in dispute that when appellant was appointed as Master on July 27, 1970, he did not possess the requisite qualification. After getting the requisite qualification, he joined as a regular Teacher on July 7, 1975, whereas respondent No. 5 had joined against regular post on August 3, 1974. As per rule 9, referred to above, inter se seniority of the employees shall be determined keeping in view length of continuous service on a post. The L.P.A. No. 253 of 2007 -4- learned Single Judge has rightly held that the service, rendered by an untrained Teacher, cannot be deemed to be service, rendered by an employee, against a post in the service. Unless an employee becomes a member in the service, benefit of continuous service cannot be given to him. There is no error in the judgment under appeal to warrant our interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE ( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE January 30th . 2009. DKC