Dutt, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the High Court dismissed in limine the letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant relating to his seniority.
(2.) The appellant was appointed an Assistant Engineer-II with effect from June, 10, 1963 in the Punjab State Electricity Board on probation for two years which ended on June, 10, 1965. After the bifurcation of the Punjab State Electricity Board, the service of the appellant was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. As a result of a disciplinary proceeding held against the appellant, on April 15,1968 a minor penalty for the stoppage of one increment without any future effect was imposed on the appellant by the Board. After the expiry of one year, the appellant was, however, given the increment.
(3.) Although the probationary period of the appellant was completed on June 10, 1965, he was not confirmed within a reasonable time thereafter. There is also no material to show that his period of probation was extended. In the meantime, some substantive posts of Assistant Engineer Class II, fell vacant and by an order dated March 30, 1970 of the Secretary to the Board, the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 to 19 were confirmed as Assistant Engineers, Class II. It has been specifically stated in the said order that the officers mentioned therein, that is, the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 to 19 had satisfactorily completed the probatationary period of two years. It, however, appears from the said order that respondents Nos. 2 to 19 were confirmed in the posts of Assistant Engineers Class II, with effect from April 1, 1969, while the appellant was confirmed in that post with effect from December, 1, 1969. Consequently, the appellant's name was placed last of all the confirmed officers. In the seniority list also, the name of the appellant was placed against serial No. 63, that is, below the names of the respondents Nos. 2 to 19, although the seniority list appears to have been prepared on the basis of the respective dates of appointments of the officers. As the appellant was appointed on June 10, 1963, his name should have been placed below the name of Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (Serial No. 45) respondent No. 3 appointed on June 7, 1963 and above the name of Sudesh Kumar Tuli (Serial No. 46) respondent No. 2 appointed on June 21, 1963, but his name was placed below that of Ved Prakash Lalit (Serial No. 62), who was appointed on April 7, 1964. In other words, the names of the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to 19, who are all juniors to the appellant, were placed above the name of the appellant in the seniority list without any reason whatsoever.;