- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein the question of inter se seniority between the appellant and Respondent 3, both of whom were direct recruits to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer, a post borne in Class II of the Government is involved.
(2.)IT is undisputed that this appellant as well as said Respondent 3 were recruited to the service on the basis of a selection made by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The service conditions of these employees are governed by a set of rules framed under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution called the Punjab Development and Panchayat (Class II) Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment Rules").
The case of the appellant is that even though both of them were selected by the Public Service Commission, and in adjudging merit the Commission has ascribed a higher position to Respondent 3 than the appellant, but since the period of probation in case of Respondent 3 was extended, the said Respondent 3 must be held to be an appointee from the date of the completion of the extended period of probation and not earlier and that being the position, the appellant must be held to be senior to Respondent 3 inasmuch as by legal fiction he would have a longer continuous length of service in the cadre.

(3.)THE High Court, however, on examining the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules, has come to the conclusion that the seniority of the members of the cadre is governed by R.13, and in view of the proviso to R.13, in respect of the members recruited by direct appointment the order of merit determined by the Commission, would govern the inter se seniority in view of the language of the proviso prohibiting that the said position shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority.