Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Singh Sindhu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 October, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 21, 2009
Surender Singh Sindhu
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Sanjeev K. Tamak, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in changing his seniority. The petitioner, who was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State on 10.12.1976 has, thus, filed this writ petition to challenge the order, whereby his seniority has been changed. After being appointed in the year 1976, the petitioner was granted promotion grade on 28.2.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. At that time, the seniority of the petitioner had not been determined. The petitioner accordingly made a request for determining his seniority. Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated that his name was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
placed at seniority No.1221A of the seniority list. Another seniority list was subsequently issued on 1.1.1996, which placed the petitioner at Sr.No.986 of the gradation list on the basis of gradation list so published and published subsequent thereto. For the purpose of consideration, the name of the petitioner was again shown at seniority list No.986 in the seniority list published in the year 2007. Accordingly, he was granted promotion on this basis. The petitioner was also granted current duty charge by taking into consideration his seniority. Subsequently, however, the petitioner was issued a notice on 25.1.2008 for re-fixing his seniority as Junior Engineer. The perusal of the show cause notice would reveal that a complaint had been made by Ram Pal Singh, Junior Engineer, challenging the seniority assigned to the petitioner as per the merit list of selection of Junior Engineers in the year 1976. The name of said Ram Pal Singh appeared at Sr. No.174 of the selected candidates, whereas the petitioner was at No.230. Shri Ram Pal Singh accordingly made a grievance that the petitioner had been wrongly given current duty charge of the post of S.D.O. by ignoring the seniority. The petitioner was accordingly served a notice as to why his name should not be deleted from seniority list No.986 and placed at Sr.No.1054A of the gradation list as on 1.1.1996 and so also in the promotion list of S.D.Os. as circulated in the year 2006 and 2007. The petitioner would claim this to be an alteration of his seniority and would further submit that he had no role in fixing his seniority as was earlier done and, thus, would impugn the change on the ground that the same cannot be effected after lapse of so many years. In support, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of K.R.Mudgal and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
others Vs. R.P.Singh and others, (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007 (1) SCT 525, Madan Lal Vs. Union of India, 1997(3) S.C.T. 381, Indraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1997(4) S.C.T. 764 and V.M.Radhakrishnan Nair and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, 1988(3) SLR 693.
The respondents would justify the issuance of this show cause notice to the petitioner and so also change of his seniority on the ground that his name was shown at Sr.No.986 because of inadvertent mistake, which has now been sought to be corrected. It is pointed out that petitioner was selected in the year 1976 through Staff Selection Board. The seniority list was prepared by the S.S.S.Board, where the name of the petitioner appeared at Sr.No.230. The seniority list was then prepared in the year 1981 and 1985 but due to clerical error, the name of the petitioner was not included in the said list. On a representation filed by the petitioner, his name was included in the seniority list but was inadvertently shown at Sr.No.1221-A in the gradation list as it stood on 1.10.1985. The petitioner is trying to encash this inadvertent mistake whereas the seniority assigned to him w.e.f.1.1.1986 was wrong. His name in the gradation list prepared in the year 1996 shown at Sr.No.986 was on the basis of seniority assigned to him in the earlier list at No.1221- A of the gradation list of 1985. As per the merit prepared by the S.S.S.Board, the name of the petitioner was required to be fixed at Sr.No.1284-A in the gradation list issued in the year 1985 and at Sr.No.1054-A in the gradation list issued in the year 1996. It is only on the basis of wrong seniority assigned to the petitioner at No.986 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
that his name was included in the ranking list for the purpose of promotion in the year 2006 and 2007. It is on this basis only that he was given current duty charge of the post of S.D.O. As per the reply, this mistake was noticed when Ram Pal Singh made a complaint claiming seniority over the petitioner. The matter was then examined by the department and this inadvertent mistake has been corrected. As per this, the name of the petitioner ought to have appeared at No.1054-A, but was inadvertently shown wrongly at Sr.No.986. This obvious mistake has now been corrected after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, which the petitioner has disputed on the ground that the department itself has fixed the seniority and that the same cannot be changed after lapse of this long period.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The facts as noticed would clearly bring out that the petitioner is trying to encash the obvious mistake committed by the department in fixing the seniority of the petitioner. In response to a specific query, the counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that he was wrongly assigned seniority at Sr.No.986 on the basis of merit prepared by S.S.S.Board and that actually his seniority was required to be fixed at No.1054-A. Still, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that after lapse of 20 years, this mistake, which is obvious, cannot be corrected to prejudice the case of the petitioner for promotion which has been granted to him. I am unable to subscribe to this line of reasoning advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. It is not a case where the seniority is being changed on account of any change in principles or change of any rule position etc. The petitioner was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2008 :{ 5 }:
assigned seniority inadvertently. It was a mistake, an inadvertent one, which is sought to be corrected now.
The view canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner would mean that even mistake once committed should be allowed to perpetuate and should not be corrected. No principle of law can be shown which would accept this line of reasoning as justified. This reasoning would not find support even from the number of judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. Case of K.R.Mudgal (supra) has laid down a principle that court should not entertain petitions challenging seniority after inordinate delay. These observations are made in the background that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible. In fact, the issue of giving current duty charge and for consideration for promotion has arisen only in the year 2006-
2007. A representation was then received that the petitioner was wrongly assigned seniority. The reasons for which the observations are made in the case of K.R.Mudgal (supra) certainly would not be relevant to the facts of the present case where an obvious mistake is being corrected. Even in Vinod Kumar Gupta's case (supra), the writ petition was held liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches with the observation that the writ court will not exercise its jurisdiction to unsettle the settled rights. This was also not a case where obvious mistake inadvertently committed was sought to be corrected. The observations in Madan Lal's case (supra) have also been apparently made in entirely different context. This was a case of reversion where the Government had woken up after delay of 15 years to revert the petitioner therein after altering his seniority to his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2008 :{ 6 }:
prejudice. This again is not a case where mistake was being corrected. Similarly, the observations in regard to delay in entertaining the objection to the seniority have been made in the cases of Indraj Singh (supra) and V.M.Radhakrishnan (supra) were in the facts of those cases. In all cases, the issue of seniority was reopened after lapse of time. In none of these cases, some mistakes had been committed while assigning the seniority which was sought to be corrected. It can be said that it is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations wherever there is a delayed approach. Each case has to be examined in the light of facts and circumstances in that case. Thus, I am of the view that the ratio of law laid down in the cases was in the facts and circumstances of these cases and would not be attracted in the instant case. The mistake has been noticed on a representation made by a person, who had immediately done so when the petitioner was given a current duty charge on the basis of seniority assigned to him ignoring the claim of the said representationist, who was senior to him. There is in fact no delay in making the approach. The petitioner has not been able to dispute the position that he was wrongly assigned seniority. A wrong has been corrected and in such cases, the delay if any would not be material or cannot be allowed to cause prejudice to others and unfair advantage to the petitioner.
I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction and would dismiss the same.
October 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE