Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Juneja And Others vs Haryana Power General Corporation ... on 23 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1208 of 2012 in
Civil Writ Petition No.15571 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision:23.8.2012
Ravi Juneja and others ...... Appellants
Versus
Haryana Power General Corporation Limited (HPGCL) and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
****
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
C.M. Nos.3220-21-LPA of 2012 In view of the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal, the same are allowed and delay of 40 days in filing and 46 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. LPA No.1208 of 2012
The Haryana Power Generation Co-operation Limited (HPGCL) initiated recruitment process for filling up large number of posts of Assistant Engineers in four streams namely Electronics, Mechanical, Electrical and Civil. A single consolidated advertisement was inserted in the press for all category of posts. It appears that the recruitment process was staggered discipline-wise leading to different dates of interviews/tests/declaration of results and drawing up of the merit list category-wise. The result of the exercise led to appointments being offered separately spaced by time for each stream. Resultantly, some candidates LPA No.1208 of 2012 (O&M) -2- came to be appointed and joined service on earlier dates. All the candidates having joined, there arose dispute of inter se seniority.
The petitioners represent the Electronic Branch and having reaped the benefit of having joined service earlier insisted before the learned Single Judge that their seniority should run from the date of initial entry into service in terms of Regulation 15 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulations, 1965 applicable to all the four posts on the basis continuous appointment in a particular class of post in that class. The respondent-Corporation drew up a final seniority list on 8.7.2011 following merit position as determinative of seniority by combining all four disciplines recruited under the single advertisement.
The petitioners who are now appellants before us challenged the final seniority list as one being based on executive instructions contrary to statutory rules which required continuous length of service in the cadre as the seniority rule.
The grievance of the appellants while trying to claim seniority over their compatriots is misplaced because of Clause 4 of the offer of appointment issued to them, sample of one of which is Annexure P-2 issued to the first petitioner Ravi Juneja which reads as follows:
"Inter-seniority of all the candidates of all streams viz Assistant Engineer/Clertronics (Trainee), Assistant Engineer/Mechanical (Trainee) and Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) will be finalized on the basis of total marks awarded in the selection process after selection process against Adv No CRA-01/HPGCL- 2007 dated 15.2.2007 is completed."
Merely because the interviews were held on different dates for each stream and the results declared on different dates spanning four months LPA No.1208 of 2012 (O&M) -3- separating the Assistant Engineers Electronics from the Assistant Engineer Electrical in 2007 would not give any right to them to steal a march over their fellow Assistant Engineers. The procedure for recruitment by direct appointment is regulated by Regulation 10 which lays down that there would be an advertisement and interview based selection of candidates for purpose of determining order of merit. The mere date of appointment is purely a fortuitous circumstance. The interpretation of the Corporation of determining seniority inter se according to merit is rational and non arbitrary and in conformity with Regulations 10, 15 and para 4 of the offer of appointment.
We find absolutely no reason to harbour even a stray thought as to the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge and would uphold it and dismiss the appeal. We may, however, add that the respondent-corporation would have done well in keeping the results of all four streams close to their chest and offering appointments to all the selected candidates together in one go but for which this litigation may not have reached this Court and taken its valuable time.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA )
JUDGE JUDGE
23.8.2012
rajeev