Shri Ganga Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Sanjay Karol, Judge

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 1. The seniority list of Statistical Assistants (Annexure P-12) and Technical Assistants (Annexure P-16) may kindly be quahsed and set aside and the Respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to redraw the seniority lists of Statistical Assistants and Technical Assistants showing the Petitioner senior to the Respondents No. 3 to 10 in the interests of justice.

The Notification dated 18.6.2009 (Anneuxre P-17) issued by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Annexure P-16 is the final seniority list of the Technical Assistants circulated on 17th February, 2009 and Annexure P-12 is the revised seniority list of Statistical Assistants in the Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh circulated on 19th February, 2009. 2. Undisputedly, these lists have been prepared pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, vide judgment dated 22nd July, 2008, passed in CWP No. 177 of 2000, titled as Pritam Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Anneuxre P-10), wherein following directions stand issued:

In the present case also since respondent No. 1 had acquired the minimum qualification of graduation required for filling up the post of Statistical Assistant in April, 1983, he could not be granted the benefit of entire approved military service before April, 1983.

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed by directing that respondent No. 1 will be granted benefit of approved military service with effect from April, 1983 onwards alone. His appointment to the post of Statistical Assistant made on 17.7.1984 is approved. Before parting with the judgment, it is clarified that since respondent No. 1 was promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant with effect from 30.1.1988, the same shall not be disturbed. However, his further promotion will be considered on the basis of his seniority to be drawn afresh as per the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the impugned revised seniority lists, petitioner is placed below the private respondents. It cannot be disputed that petitioner''s appointment to the post Technical Assistant w.e.f. 17.7.1984 and to the post of Statistical Assistant w.e.f. 17.7.1984 stands approved by this Court in Pritam Chand (supra). Noticeably, which fact is not disputed, private respondents were appointed to the said post even prior to the present petitioner and accordingly seniority list was prepared by the respondents by taking into account such seniority on the basis of date of appointment/promotion. Hence, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents, in preparation of the revised seniority lists, is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court or the statutory provisions, infraction of which could not be pointed out during the course of hearing.

It is urged by Mr. H.K. Paul, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that since the lis in Pritam Chand (supra) was only interse between the petitioner, namely Ganga Ram and Pritam Chand (who is not a party in this petition), directions issued by this Court are applicable only qua them. In effect it is urged that the judgment is in personam and not in rem. To buttress such contentions, he has referred to and relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary and Others, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Chanshyam Dass (2) and others, (2011) 4 SCC 374.

I have carefully gone through the said decision and am afraid the ratio of law laid down therein is clearly inapplicable to the instant case. The decisions do no deal with the question of preparation of seniority list interse between the employees of the same cadre. The directions issued by this Court are categorical with regard to the preparation of Revised Seniority List.

In Ashok (supra) the Court was dealing with a case where challenge to appointment made dehors the Rules, was being considered after a long gap of 17 years. In this backdrop the Apex Court held that the decision, protecting such appointment, shall be restricted to and made applicable only to such persons who had approached the Court within time. Benefit of protection of such illegal appointment was not extended to other candidates. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam (supra), the Court has simply said that fence-sitters, who do not approach the Court within time, cannot claim relief similar which stands awarded to person who approaches the Court within time.

In the instant case, as is already observed, the Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Chand (supra) has categorically approved appointment of the petitioner to the post of Technical/Statistical Assistant only w.e.f. 17.7.1984 and 17.7.1984 respectively, which findings have been accepted by the petitioner himself. The respondent had to redraw the seniority list based on such findings, regardless the persons who approached the Court. It is not that petitioner''s seniority or placement in the seniority list was otherwise protected by the Court, only his promotion was not disturbed. Consequently, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.