IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1647 of 1986 Date of decision: 15.2.2010 Sh. Beant Singh Bedi & others. -----Petitioners. Vs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2. Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S. Batta, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of the Gradation List, Annexure P-4, wherein respondents No.3 and 4 were shown to be senior to the petitioners. 2. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents were members of Punjab Judicial service. Even though respondents No.3 and 4 had lesser length of service, they were shown to be senior to the petitioners in the Gradation List. They were given higher seniority by giving the benefit of Demobilised Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”). It was stated that CWP No.1647 of 1986 the private respondents could not claim benefit of seniority under the said rules as they failed to avail of the opportunity of appearing in the competition at the first available opportunity and had also crossed the age of eligibility. The writ petition was contested by the High Court, respondent No.1, relying upon report of a Judge of this Court dated 16.1.1985 which relies upon judgments of this Court in Amarjit Singh Sodhi v. State of Punjab 1976 SLWR 311 and Khusbash Singh Sandhu v. The State of Punjab 1981 (2) SLR 576, interpreting the said rule. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that the matter is covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1988 SC 1648, wherein giving of benefit of three years service for seniority, for competing in the relevant examination was held to be permissible, apart from actual Military service and time taken in posting. In subsequent clarificatory order reported in Narendra Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1989 SC 1131, the same position was reiterated. 3. We are of the view that grant of benefit of seniority to the contesting respondents was in accordance with rules as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Nath 2 CWP No.1647 of 1986 Pandey (supra). Moreover, the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents have retired long back. 4. In view of above, no ground is made out for interference with the Gradation List. 5. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 15, 2010 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashwani JUDGE 3