I.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) In order to resolve the controversy which has raised with regard to the true interpretation and scope of proviso (I) to Sec. 32 (1) of the Guru Nanak Dev University Statutes (hereinafter refers to as the University Statutes) framed in exercise of powers under section 19 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Act, it is necessary to notice the following facts.
(2.) On its establishment in the year 1969, the University issued an advertisement in the press inviting - applications for recruitment to the posts of Clerk. In response to this the petitioners applied for the said posts and they are only selected by the Selection Committee vide its proceedings dated June 15/16, 1970. Similarly respondents Nos. 4 to 17 were duly selected during that very meeting of the Selection Committee. Respondents No. 5, 6 however, were selected by the said Committee in their meeting held on Oct. 26/27, 1970. According to the petitioners in terms of merit they were placed above most of the respondents. After a year's service the petitioners as well as respondents 4 to 17 were confirmed in their respective posts as Clerks.
(3.) Later on in the year 1972, an inter se provisional seniority list showing the petitioners senior to most of the respondents was framed and relevant extract of the said list is Annexure P - 2 to the petition. After hearing objections the said list was finalised in the year 1975. This seniority of the petitioners as well as the private respondents was reflected in the gradation list published vide Annexure P. 3. Later when on the basis of the seniority list finalised in the year 1975 and reflected in the gradation list in the year 1979, promotions to the posts of Assistants were made, one Surinder Kumar Sharma, who is now respondent No. 6, filed Writ Petition No. 4041 of 1978 (Surinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University through its Registrar) contending that the seniority list Annexure P. 3 was not correctly framed as his five years' service with the Punjab University prior to his selection to the post of Clerk in the year 1970 had not been counted though under the provisions of first proviso to section 32(1) of the University Statutes, he was entitled to the benefit of his past service for purposes of his seniority and thus should have been treated as senior to some of the persons promoted. In reply to the said petition, the Registrar of the University, vide his written statement Annexure P. 4, took up the stand that first proviso to section 32(1) of the University Statutes only applied to the case of an appointment by transfer and as there had been no such appointment and the petitioner rather being a direct recruit, no such benefit of past service could be given to him. The relevant portion of that written statement clearly depicting the stand of the University in that petition is as follows:- "The only interpretation which can be given to proviso (i) and (ii) of the above - mentioned section is that the benefit of past service can only be given to those persons who are recruited from other Universities and Government Department or local Bodies by way of transfer. The word 'recruitment' in (i) proviso only means those recruited by way of transfer. The (ii) proviso is attracted to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was recruited by way of direct appointment. In the Guru Nanak Dev University no employee has been recruited by way of transfer. The petitioner has not been recruited by way of transfer, as such, he is not entitled to the benefit of his past service in the University. In fact the petitioner resigned his post in the Punjab University after he was selected for service in the Guru Nanak Dev University. It is thus submitted that (i) proviso is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and he is governed by (ii) proviso being a direct recruiters." The writ petition filed by Surinder Kumar Sharma was dismissed by this Court in limine on Nov. 20, 1978.;