Case: Tejinder Singh Sandhu Vs. State Of Punjab And Ors

August 18, 1965, which was 14 days after the appellant had taken charge of his post. Respondent 2 was promoted as a Deputy Director in 1966 but , that was for the reason that lie was working on deputation with the Ludhiana Agricultural University and until the Government permitted its officers working on deputation with the University to revert to the State Service, respondent 2, though eligible for being appointed as a Deputy Director, could not be so appointed. Thus the circumstance that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 took charge of their respective posts in Class I Service on divergent dates is purely fortuitous and cannot affect their seniority.All the three were appointed as Class I Officers on a purely ad-hoc basis. The permanent vacancies in that cadre occurred in 1971 and it is in reference to the State of affairs obtaining at that point of time that the question of seniority of the three officers has to be considered. On the date on which permanent vacancies occurred in the Class I cadre, the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 had all completed their probationary period satisfactorily. They were, therefore, eligible and perhaps entitled to be confirmed in Class I posts. But that confirmation had to be made in the order in which they ranked in seniority in their Class II posts. We have no doubt that since all o f them were appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and since they had all completed their probation in Class I posts when permanent vacancies occurred in that cadre, their seniority in Class 11 has to prevail in their ranking in Class I. By that criterion, there can be no doubt that that the appellant must take his place below respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that seniority of officers promoted to Class I from the Class 11 cadre must b e determined according to the dates of their continuous officiation in Class I posts and according to the dates on which they completed their probationary period. It is urged that by the application of this dual test, the appellant would rank higher in seniority over respondents 2 and 3. By reason of the circumstances which we have earlier mentioned, there is no substance in this contention. The appellant was junior to respondents 2 and 3 in Class III as well as in Class 11 Service of the Pepsu State. He was also junior to them in Class 11 Service of the Punjab Government, after reorganisation of the States. Having been appointed to the higher post on the same date as respondent 3 and on an ad-hoc basis, the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of a chancy circumstance that being geographically close to the headquarters he was able to take charge of the post of promotion on the very date on which he was appointed, , in opportunity which a quirk of posting denied to respondent 3. The latter., being at Kulu, had to be relieved of his post there and the proverbial red-tapism intervened to disable. him from taking charge of his Class I post until fourteen days later. In so far as respondent 2 is concerned, he had to await the decision of the Government that those on deputation to the Ludhiana Agricultural University may re- turn to their parent departments. It is not disputed that if in August 1965, respondent 2 was not working on deputation, he would have been promoted along with the appellant and respondent 3 to Class I. In fact it is important that in Class 1, there were only two vacancies in August 1965 and if respondent 2 were available for being posted as a Deputy Director, it is he and respondent 3 who would have filled the two vacancies. The appellant being junior to them would not have been appointed as a Deputy Director even on an ad-hoc basis.Learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on the State Governments instructions regarding fixation of seniority contained in Government Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583 dated April 11, 1966, in support of his argument that the appellant must rank higher in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. The Memorandum has no application because it refers to temporary officers appointed to the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class I and Class II. In case of temporary officers promoted to Class I and Class 11 post s, seniority may have to be determined under the particular Government Memorandum with reference to the dates of continuous appointment in the respective cadres. But the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were working in a permanent capacity when they were promoted to Class 1. What governs the seniority of the appellant is not the Memorandum on which he relies but the rules contained in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class 1, Rules, 1947. If regard is had to rules 10 and 16 of the a foresaid Rules, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant must rank lower in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. Rule 16 provides that seniority of members of the Service shall be determined according to the date of confirmation in the Service. The exact dates of confirmation of the officers concerned are not on the record but it is clear that by reason of the circumstances adverted to before, appellants confirmation has to, be postponed to that of respondents 2 and 3. 6. We are, there fore, of the opinion that the High Court is right in taking the view that respondents 2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as Joint Directors of Agriculture in preference to the appellant on the basis of their seniority. Accordingly we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal. The appellant shall pay the costs of respondents 2 and 3 in one set. There will be no order as to costs of respondent 1, the State of Punjab, or of respondents 4 and 5.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The appellant being junior to them would not have been appointed as a Deputy Director even on anadhocbasis.Learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on the State Governments instructions regarding fixation of seniority contained in Government Memo No.. 1(1)65/1583 dated April 11, 1966, in support of his argument that the appellant must rank higher in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. The Memorandum has no application because it refers to temporary officers appointed to the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class I and Class II. In case of temporary officers promoted to Class I and Class 11 post s, seniority may have to be determined under the particular Government Memorandum with reference to the dates of continuous appointment in the respective cadres. But the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were working in a permanent capacity when they were promoted to Class 1. What governs the seniority of the appellant is not the Memorandum on which he relies but the rules contained in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class 1, Rules, 1947. If regard is had to rules 10 and 16 of the a foresaid Rules, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant must rank lower in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. Rule 16 provides that seniority of members of the Service shall be determined according to the date of confirmation in the Service. The exact dates of confirmation of the officers concerned are not on the record but it is clear that by reason of the circumstances adverted to before, appellants confirmation has to, be postponed to that of respondents 2 and 36. We are, there fore, of the opinion that the High Court is right in taking the view that respondents 2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as Joint Directors of Agriculture in preference to the appellant on the basis of their seniority. Accordingly we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal. The appellant shall pay the costs of respondents 2 and 3 in one set. There will be no order as to costs of respondent 1, the State of Punjab, or of respondents 4 and 5.