Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Punjab State Co-Operative Supply ... vs S.L. Batra And Others on 17 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.478 of 2012 in
Civil Writ Petition No.18278 of 1996 (O&M)
Date of Decision:17.8.2012
The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.
......Appellant
Versus
S.L. Batra and others
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
***
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the respondents.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd (for short "Markfed") is in appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.5.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, partly allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 7.10.1996 (Annexure P-8). Resultantly, the petitioner has been declared senior to private respondents No.2 to 20 with all consequential benefits.
The impugned order dated 7.10.1996 was passed in pursuance to the directions of this Court issued on 12.7.1996 directing Markfed to decide the representation of the writ-petitioner/respondent in the present appeal. The representation was rejected which brought the petitioner before this Court. The writ petitioner joined the services of the Markfed as Accountant "B" grade. On 12.11.1979, Markfed created a number of posts including the post of Assistant Account Officer and Senior Account Officer by a resolution. The mode of recruitment was prescribed in the ratio of 50- 50 by way of direct recruitment and promotion. In the direct recruitment L.P.A. No.478 of 2012 (O&M) -2- process initiated, the writ-petitioner remained successful as in service candidates and was appointed to the higher post on 1.1.1980 and joined the post on 7.1.1980.
It is not a dispute in fact that the private respondents were promoted as Senior Accounts Officers after the petitioner was directly recruited. Their letter of appointment by promotion was 27.11.1980. Vide memo dated 12.11.1979, 116 additional posts of Account officer were created to be filled in the ratio of 50-50 i.e. 58 were earmarked for direct recruitment and 58 for promotion. The prescribed qualification for direct recruitment was M.Com. with 3 years experience or B.Com with 9 years experience in a Government/Corporation or a reputed business house. Whereas for promotion from Sr. Accountant/Accountant "A" Grade/ Accountant to Assistant Accounts Officer, the qualification was B.A. with 7 years experience in Accounts within Markfed or B.Com with 7 years experience in any branch of Markfed. Seniority is governed by Rule 2.16 of the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees Common Cadre Service Rules, 1990 (for short "2.16 Rule"), which determines inter se seniority in each cadre by length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the service in view of Rule 2.16. It is passed cavil that incumbent to a post would have a vested right to seniority from the date when he became a member of the cadre, i.e., in the present case, Assistant Accounts Officer. The writ petitioner having joined prior to the private respondents would rank senior. Therefore, Markfed has committed palpable error in reading the seniority rule into the resolution dated 12.11.1979.
We see no assumption in the resolution dated 12.11.1979 that by creating an additional post and prescribing qualification the seniority rule L.P.A. No.478 of 2012 (O&M) -3- contained in Rule 2.16 could be given a go by. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, in his considered view correct in giving precedence to statutory rules and subordinating the resolution dated 7.12.1979 as subservient.
The argument of Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that fixing ratio of 50-50 is not contrary but supplemental to Rules is unacceptable if the appellant-Markfed in its wisdom thought that its interpretation was rational and equitable, it could have doctorate different coerce by way of amending rules. The reliance placed by the appellant on Chandigarh Administration versus Usha Kheterpal, (2011) 9 SCC 645 at page 10 in the grounds of appeal is not appropriate. In that case Chandigarh Administration was held within its right to prescribe the qualification of Phd. in the advertisement for better efficiency but that is not the situation here.
The further argument that the writ petitioner could be assigned seniority only when the vacancy occurs in his quota is fallacious because prescription of quota is not intertwined with the seniority rule.
We do not discern from the record of this case that there was in operation any quota rota rule. No ground for interference is made out in this case.
Dismissed.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA )
JUDGE JUDGE
17.8.2012
rajeev