CWP No. 17126 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17126 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: July 07, 2010 Surinder Singh and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P-9), vide which the seniority of the petitioners as Constables has been withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed as Special Police Officers (SPOs) during terrorism days in the State of Punjab in the year 1992. Since the petitioners became eligible for appointment as regular Constables after rendering one year of service, considering the work and conduct of the petitioners, in terms of standing order dated 26.07.1990 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 19.11.1991 (Annexure P-2), a Board was constituted to interview persons such as the CWP No. 17126 of 2009 2 petitioners and conduct a physical and medical fitness test. Considering overall parameters, the petitioners were granted regular constabulary numbers w.e.f. 19.08.1993, as would be evident from order Annexure P-6 dated 16.10.1998. Learned counsel contends that civil rights were vested in the petitioners on giving seniority to the petitioners w.e.f. the year 1993, as stated above. The said rights have been adversely affected by the impugned order passed by the respondents on 22.06.2009 vide which, the seniority allowed to the petitioners has been taken away. It has further been contended that Annexure P-9 is vague in so much as it does not even give the date from which the petitioners would be considered as regular constables. 3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners would be satisfied if the petitioners are given a hearing before reconsidering their seniority. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the petitioners would be given a hearing. Learned counsel further states that the inter se seniority of the petitioners and other constables has not been affected. No person junior to the petitioners has been made senior to the petitioners. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. 6. Order Annexure P-9 is quashed. Director General of Police PAP would issue show cause notices to the petitioners and thereafter after hearing the petitioners, pass orders afresh. 07.07.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?