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

1.The appellant, Tejinder Singh Sandhu, and respondents 2 and 3 were serving initially as Class III Officers but were recruited directly as Class 11 Officers in the erstwhile. State of Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, (Pepsu). After the reorganisation of Punjab and Pepsu, they were absorbed in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class 11. In the seniority list of Class 11 Officers, respondent 2 was shown at serial No. 30, respondent 3 at serial No. 39 and the appellant at serial No. 40. On August 2, 1965, appellant and responent 3 were promoted on anadhocbasis as Deputy Di rectors of Agriculture, a post borne on the cadre of Class I Service. The appellant took charge of that post on August 4, 1965 while respondent 3 took charge fourteen days later on August, 18, 1965. Theadhocpromotions were made for a period of three months or until such time as the appointments could be made on a regular basis2. Respondent 2 was working at the material time in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The Government of Punjab having taken a decision in October, 1966 to allow its officers who were working on deputation with the Ludhiana Agricultural University to rejoin the State Service, respondent 2 returned to the parent Department on October 28, 1966. He was promoted as Deputy Director of Agriculture, Class 1, on February 22, 1967 on the same basis as the appellant and respondent 33. The appellant completed his probation on August 3, 1967 while respondents 2 and 3 completed theirs on February 21, 1969 arid March 1, 19 68, respectively. On October 14, 1971, the Government of Punjab published a tentative seniority list of Class I Officers in which the appellant was shown as junior to respondents 2 and 3. Acting on the basis of the seniority list, the State Government promoted respondent 2 to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture on July 10, 1973 and respondent 3 on. July 16, 1973. The appellant had filed a representation on the publication of the seniority list complaining that since he had officiate d continuously in the Class I post for a longer period than respondents 2 and 3 and had completed his probation before, they had completed theirs, he should have been treated as senior to the other two and was entitled to be promoted as Joint Director in. preference to them. It was implicit in the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of Joint Director that the appellants representation was rejected by the Government.On August 16, 1973 the appellant filed a Writ Petit ion in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana contending that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of Joint Director was illegal being violative of article 16 of the Constitution and demanding that in recognition of his superior claim arising by virtue of seniority he should be promoted and confirmed in the post of Joint Director. By its judgment dated May it, 1974, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition but granted to the appellant a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under article 133(1) of the Constitution.

Court's reasoning:
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.