C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 25.2.2009
Megh Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Mamta Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioners, in CWP Nos.6542 of 2007
and 6543 of 2007.
Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
M/s R.D.Bawa, Randhir Bawa,
C.S.Rana, Samuel Gill and
Ms. Ratna Shri, Advocates for the petitioner,
in CWP Nos.6857 of 2007 and 686 of 2008.
Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. AG, Punjab,
for respondent-State of Punjab.
Mr. Rajiv Raina, Advocate.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate,
for Union of India.
Mr. N.S.Virk, Advocate,
for UPSC.
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.6542 of
2007, 6543 of 2007, 6857 of 2007 and 686 of 2008, which raise common
questions of law, touching the legality of the seniority-list finalized and
circulated by the State Government by its orders dated 4.4.2007 and
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 2
13.4.2007 respectively. The dispute primarily relates to the
determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees
appointed by a process of nomination and selection. The petitioners, who
happen to be promotee officers, appointed by nomination from various
Registers, maintained under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, are
dissatisfied with the norms adopted for determination of their inter se
seniority vis-a vis. the respondents, who happen to be direct recruits. The
dispute and the resultant litigation has a chequered history. It all started
as early as on 18.3.1993, when a final seniority list of Officers appointed
upto the year 1985 was finalized and circulated by the Government. The
petitioner-promotee officers were in that list and the list that was
circulated subsequently on 1.7.1994 regarding direct recruits of 1986
batch, placed above the respondent-direct recruits. Aggrieved by the said
placement the direct recruits filed Civil Writ Petition No.16516 of 1995,
inter alia, contending that the determination of the seniority ought to be
strictly as per the roster provided in Rules 18 and 21 of Punjab Civil
Services (Executive Branch), Rules, 1976. The said writ petition was
dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by an order dated 8.12.1999,
holding that Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned above, only provided for the
roster for appointment and did not regulate the fixation of the seniority.
The learned Single Judge noted that the seniority of those appointed
under the said Rules was to be determined by reference to Rule 21 of the
Rules having regard to the date of appointment, which implied the date of
actual appointment and not necessarily the order in which appointments
were made under Rule 18.
Dissatisfied with the view taken by the learned Single Judge,
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 3
the direct recruits preferred LPA No.1705 of 2000 which failed and was
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.12.2000.
Against the said order, the direct recruits filed an appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C.A.No.6373
of 2001 titled Arvinder Singh Bains Vs. State of Punjab), which was
eventually disposed of by an order dated 24.5.2006. After a review of the
case law on the subject as also the service Rules regulating the service
conditions of those in Punjab Civil Services their Lordships came to the
conclusion that the seniority of Officers recruited to the service from
different Registers had to be determined as per the order prescribed in
Rule 18 read with Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive
Branch) Class-I, Rules 1976. This would, declared their Lordships,
imply that the seniority will have to be as per the Roster allocated to each
Register maintained under the said Rules. Having said so, the seniority-
lists earlier circulated by the Government were set aside and the matter
remitted back to the Government for preparation of a composite fresh
seniority-list assigning positions to the direct recruits and the promotees
with consequential benefits, keeping in view the observations made in the
judgment.
In obedience to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the State Government issued a tentative seniority list dated
15.12.2006 in which it placed the direct recruits and the promotees as per
the Roster points stipulated under Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned above.
The petitioners, so also others were dissatisfied with that placement, to
which they filed objections, which were examined by the Government but
turned down by an order dated 4.4.2007 culminating in the circulation of
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 4
final seniority list on 13.4.2007 impugned in the present petitions.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and perused the record.
Several contentions were urged by learned counsel appearing
for the parties in support of their respective cases. It is, however,
unnecessary for us to either, refer to the said contentions or to deal with
the same on merits. We say so because in the course of their submissions
learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were due to
retire within a period of less than 2 years or so and that since their
reversion had been stayed in terms of the order passed by this Court, as
modified by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they would be
satisfied, if they were allowed to continue so long as there are vacancies
available in the Indian Administrative Service of Punjab Cadre. It was
pointed out that while Sh. Surjit Singh, petitioner, in Civil writ petition
No. 6543 of 2007 would be superannuating on 31.7.2009, Sh. Megh Raj,
petitioner, in Civil Writ Petition No. 6542 of 2007 would be
superannuating on 31.7.2010. Similarly Sh. Bhagwant Singh, petitioner,
in Civil Writ Petition No.6857 of 2007 would be superannuating on
31.11.2010 while Sh. Khushi Ram, petitioner, in Civil Writ Petition
No.686 of 2008 on 31.1.2011. It was submitted that this Court had on
15.10.2007 while admitting Civil Writ Petition No.6542 of 2007 directed
that the selection process could go on but the petitioner in that case shall
not be reverted till further orders. Similar orders were passed in the
remaining writ petitions also from time to time. Pursuant to the said
orders and with a view to continuing the selection process the Union
Public Service Commission had convened a meeting on 25.2.2008 to
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 5
make selections to the Indian Administrative Service Punjab Cadre and
selected six candidates found suitable for appointment. The interim
orders issued by this Court were, however, modified by this Court by
order dated 3.4.2008 to the effect that since six respondents had been
selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service, the
continuance of the petitioners against the posts held by them shall not
affect their appointments against the available vacancies in the Cadre.
In the meantime, certain proceedings were instituted against
the selection of the direct recruits even before the Central Administrative
Tribunal in which certain interim orders were passed, which orders were
then assailed by the petitioners in this Court. Certain interim directions
protecting the petitioners against reversion in the said cases were also
issued by this Court. Against all these directions the respondents-direct
recruits preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in which their Lordships passed an order on 22.10.2008 to the
following effect:
“The appeals are allowed, modifying the impugned orders of
the High Court to the following extent :
(a) That portion of the impugned orders whereby and
whereunder the High Court has stayed the reversion of the
writ petitioners, who are respondents in these appeals, shall
stand vacated. However, they shall be adjusted against any
of the 12 vacancies which are stated to be existing and in
respect of which steps are being taken to send requisition to
the Union of India for making appointment. The writ
petitioners-respondents will be entitled to continue against
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 6these vacancies only till appointment against those
vacancies is notified by the Union of India.
(b) The appellants before us must be appointed to the cadre
of IAS in terms of the seniority list dated 4.4.2007.
(c) The above directions shall, however, be subject to the
ultimate result of the writ petitions which are pending before
the High Court.
We in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, further direct the State of Punjab to
send the requisition for filling up all the above mentioned 12
vacancies in the cadre of IAS, to the Union of India and the
Union Public Service Commission, as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of three weeks from
today. Both Union of India and Union Public Service
Commission are hereby directed to consider the requisition
sent by the State of Punjab in respect of the aforementioned
12 vacancies as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of 16 weeks from the date of communication
of the requisition.
We would request the High Court to consider the
desirability of disposing of the pending writ petitions as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three
weeks from today.”
It is not in dispute that on account of the above protection
granted to the petitioners each one of them has been allowed to continue
in the Cadre against the vacancies within the quota meant for the
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 7
promotees. It is in the back-drop of the above facts argued on behalf of
the petitioners that although the process of selection and appointment
against vacancies currently held by the petitioners has been initiated and
is in progress, even if those selected on the basis of the said process are
appointed, the petitioners can still be allowed to continue against other
vacancies which have already become available or may become available
within the quota meant for the promotees or direct recruits. It was
submitted that the continuance of the petitioners would not cause any
inconvenience, hardship or prejudice to any one eligible for appointment
against such vacancies as this Court could make it clear that their
continuance would not prevent the authorities from initiating the process
of selection with regard to such vacancies or making appointments
against the same. It was urged that since the petitioners have given the
best years of their lives to the Civil Service and had been promoted to the
Indian Administrative Service of Punjab Cadre on the basis of a seniority
list which may not have found favour with the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the least that could be done was to allow them to retire without suffering
the ignominy of being reverted to the lower cadre. The petitioners were
on those terms willing to accept the impugned list to be valid and
withdraw their challenge to the same.
On behalf of the respondents, it was on the other hand,
submitted that while vacancies keep occurring and the process of
appointment against the same is a continuing process, the limited prayer
made by the petitioners could be considered, subject to the condition that
their continuance would not in any manner prevent the authorities from
selecting suitable candidates against any such vacancies or making
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 8
appointments based on such selection. It was submitted that if at any
stage the number of vacancies available were less than the number of
petitioners, who may be allowed to continue by this Court, the junior-
most person holding any such post would have to vacate. So also in case
all or any of the vacancies available at any given point of time have to be
filled up by making suitable selections or appointments from the relevant
sources, the petitioners should have no grievance against such
appointments.
We have given our careful consideration to the submissions
made at the bar. The challenge to the impugned seniority list is on the
statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, abandoned by the
petitioners. This need not necessarily imply that the petitioners must
suffer reversion or superannuation from service so long as their
continuance is otherwise possible without causing any prejudice to any
one else. That is the purport of the orders passed by their Lordships also
no matter only as an interim measure. So long as there are vacancies
available in the cadre against which the petitioners can be continued,
there is no reason why they must be reverted especially when they are so
close to superannuation. The continuance of the petitioners against the
available vacancies or vacancies that may occur in future shall however
be subject to the specific condition that such continuance will not prevent
the authorities from initiating the process of selection of suitable
candidates entitled to appointment against any such vacancies, nor shall it
prevent the authorities from making appropriate appointment of the
selected candidates in which event the petitioners or such of them as are
holding the post meant for any such selected candidate shall have to
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 9
superannuate from service as they have already crossed the age of
superannuation under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. We also make it
clear that the continuance of the petitioners against the available
vacancies shall only be for the purposes of preventing their immediate
exit from service and shall not be interpreted to have resulted in or earned
any other benefit for them, which they would not otherwise be entitled to
in terms of the seniority list now finalized except the right to receive the
current emoluments admissible to that post. The writ petitions are with
the above directions disposed of. This order shall not be taken as a
precedent. All the pending CMs shall stand disposed of in terms of this
order. No costs.
(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
25.2.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal JUDGE