CWP No.8546 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 8546 of 1993 Date of Decision: 5 - 8 - 2010 D.C.Aggarwal and others ....Petitioners v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 29. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the promotion orders dated 3.12.1992 and 31.5.1993, Annexures P13 and P14 respectively, be quashed and respondent No.1 – Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Board') be directed to re-determine the seniority list of the Accounts Officers working in the Board. Primarily, there is a dispute regarding fixation of seniority between the directly recruited Accounts Officers and the promotee Accounts Officers. In paras 11 and 12 of the written statement filed by the Board, CWP No.8546 of 1993 [2] it has been averred as under:- “11. The contents of para 11 of the petition are wrong and denied. There has been no inaction on the part of the Board to circulate the seniority list of Accounts Officers/Senior Accounts Officers/CAO/FA and neither there was any intention to deprive the petitioners from challenging the same. A tentative gradation list of the Accounts Personnels was circulated by the Board in the year back 1987 vide memo No.CH.Spl.I/EG-98 dated 26.5.1987 which was addressed to the Head of Departments with request for getting the same noted from all concerned and forward representations, if any, received to this office within a month. 12. In reply to the para 12 of the petition, it is submitted that some of the petitioner did make the representation dated 7th May, 1993 which was considered by the Board and the representationists were requested vide memo No.41/EG/98 dated 28.7.1993, a copy of which is annexed alongwith the written statement as Annexure R/3, to supply certain information for further action by the Board but till date no reply has been received and instead the petitioner have filed the present writ petition without waiting for any final decision from the Board. The judgment cited by the petitioners in this paragraph is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand.” Mr.Amar Vivek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the replication it has been controverted that any tentative seniority list was circulated amongst the officers and thus no objections could be filed, whereas in the written statement filed by respondents No.3 to 29, it has been specifically stated that the seniority list was got noted and the same was circulated on 26.5.1987. Furthermore, it is stated that respondents No.3 to 29 were appointed in the year 1974 onwards and the petitioners were directly recruited from 20.8.1981 onwards, CWP No.8546 of 1993 [3] therefore, the length of service is the only criteria which is to be relied upon by the Board. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, 1991 AIR (SC) 284 and D.Ganesh Rao Patnaik and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2005 AIR (SC) 4321 to contend that the Board has not followed the ratio of law laid down in these cases while drawing the seniority. Nobody is present on behalf of respondents No.3 to 29. There is no counter to the assertion made by counsel for the petitioners that the seniority list had not been finalised. In view of this, the stand taken by the Board in the written statement filed on 29.9.1994 that the petitioners have not responded to Annexure R/3 is to be believed. However, since the seniority list had not been finalised, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioners to file objections to the tentative seniority list. Petitioners may file their objections within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. They may also rely upon the judgments cited before this Court and the case law which finds favour to them. Once these objections are filed, the Board shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including respondents No.3 to 29 and shall take a decision within six months from today. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 5, 2010. JUDGE RC