Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2163 (PNJ)

Ram Murti Sharma v. Punjabi University, Patiala

2009-12-14

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, GURDEV SINGH

body2009
Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge, not accepting the prayer of the appellant for his seniority above respondents No. 3 to 11. 2. Case of the appellant is that he was working as a senior Steno Typist and was promoted to the post of senior stenographer on 12.3.1987, subject to passing the prescribed test which he passed. By way of amendment in rule with effect from 1.9.1983, a condition was incorporated that if a person does not pass the test within six months in two chances he will be reverted and will not be considered for promotion to the post of Stenographer for one year from the date of reversion. Promotion will be given only after passing of the prescribed test. Further promotion to the post of P. A. was to be made on the basis of seniority - cum - merit and interview. 3. Case of the appellant further was that some of the private respondents, who were promoted as Stenographers, did not pass the test within six months, as required under the rules. They passed the test later but still they have been ranked above the appellant in seniority. If the rules are to be properly applied, they are required to be reverted and promoted again with effect from a later date and in that eventuality they could not be treated senior to the appellant. Stand-taken by the University was that private respondents No. 3 to 5 passed the test prior to the appellant in the year 1983 itself but they were not appointed by the Selection Committee. However, this Court held them entitled to promotion by order dated 20.11.1992 in RSA No. 1185- 1988 (Devinier Kumar Mehta and others v. Punjabi University, Patiala and others) and in compliance thereof the said respondents No. 3 to 5 were given promotion over and above respondents No. 6 to 11. 4. Learned Single Judge directed that if the private respondents had passed the test even beyond the period stipulated under the rules, their seniority will be protected. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute the fact that respondents No. 3 to 5 passed the test prior to the appellant and thus, there can be no objection to their being placed above the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute the fact that respondents No. 3 to 5 passed the test prior to the appellant and thus, there can be no objection to their being placed above the appellant. His grievance is that respondents No. 6 to 11 passed the test after the appellant and they were wrongly placed above him. The seniority list was circulated for the first time vide letter dated 24.5.1995 (Annexure P/15) and he immediately filed the writ petition. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge was not justified in directing that irrespective of the date of the passing of the test, seniority would be governed by the position in the feeder cadre. This argument could not be rebutted by learned counsel for the University. 7. Accordingly, the case of the appellant vis - vis - vis respondents No. 6 to 11 is required to be re - considered after giving due opportunity to all concerned. There is no reason given by learned Single Judge as to why inspite of rule to the contrary, direction has been given that seniority of respondents No. 6 to 11 be protected irrespective of date of passing of test. This part of the observation by learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. 8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and direct the University to take a fresh decision in the matter of inter - se seniority of the appellant and respondents No. 6 to 11, after giving opportunity to all concerned. If the appellant is held to be senior, as claimed, further consequential benefits be also considered in accordance with law.