Paramjit Kaur and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioners, who were serving as Senior Assistants under the Department of School Education, State of Punjab have filed the instant writ petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the final seniority list of the cadre of Senior Assistants issued and circulated vide order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-4). Further challenge in the petition is to the orders dated 31.8.2012, 30.10.2012, 21.1.2013 and 9.9.2013 appended as Annexure P-13 (colly), whereby the private respondents stand promoted as Superintendents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would refer to a tabulation contained in para 5 of the writ petition to contend that the dates of earlier promotion of the petitioners as also deemed date of promotions in the cadre of Senior Assistants is prior to the private respondents and as such, by no stretch of imagination can the private respondents steal the march over and above the petitioners in the cadre of Senior Assistants. Counsel would contend that the impugned seniority list dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) calls for intervention and necessary rectification. Counsel has also referred to an order dated 7.11.2012 issued by the Director of Public Instructions (S.E.), Punjab at Annexure P-8, whereby a Five Member Committee was constituted to review the seniority position inter se Senior Assistants that was framed and circulated in the year 2008. Counsel would submit that in furtherance to such decision, the Committee has furnished a report on 8.2.2013 and a proposal has been sent to the office of respondent no. 2 vide which a revised seniority list has been prepared and the Committee has recommended that such seniority list be circulated in the office to invite objections, if, any. Towards such assertion, counsel would refer to the information received under the provisions of the R.T.I. Act and placed on record at Annexure P-9. It has been strenuously argued that till date such proposed/revised seniority list as furnished by the Five Member Committee has not seen the light of the day.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length, I am of the considered view that no interference in the matter is called for.

The impugned seniority list of the cadre of Senior Assistants was circulated vide order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-4). This is in the nature of a final seniority list. Learned counsel for the petitioner on having put a specific query, would concede that prior to issuance of such final seniority list, a tentative seniority list had been circulated and objections had been invited. It is further conceded that the present petitioners had submitted objections thereto. As such, it would be apparent that the objections submitted by the petitioners had not found favour and accordingly, the final seniority list of Senior Assistants was circulated on 10.10.2008, wherein they had been shown junior to the private respondents. Such seniority list, thereafter, has even been acted upon inasmuch as the orders of promotions of the private respondents at Annexure P-13 (colly) have been issued.

The grievance with regard to a wrong fixation of seniority and cause of action had accrued to the petitioners on 10.10.2008 itself. They have chosen not to challenge the same. As has been noticed herein above, such seniority list has operated further and the private respondents have been promoted to the higher post in the light of their determination as regards seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants. A prayer to unsettle such seniority position determined in the year 2008 in terms of instituting a petition in the year 2013 i.e. after a period of 5 years cannot be entertained. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, has observed in the following terms:-

A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner''s petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant''s petition as well as the appeal.

As such, the present writ petition deserves dismissal on the sole ground of delay and laches.

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is observed that the dismissal of the instant writ petition would not be viewed as an embargo as regards the respondent-authorities to proceed further in the matter in the light of the order dated 7.11.2012 at Annexure P-8, whereby a Five Member Committee had been constituted to review the seniority position. Any consequential action in pursuance thereto, would be taken at the discretion of the respondent-department and strictly in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.