K. Kannan, J. - (1.) All these writ petitions advert to the setting the issue of seniority in the Department of Agriculture, State of Punjab amongst the employees appointed through a recruitment process and who were served with orders of appointment. The respective orders of the appointment to various employees specified a joining period and it is now not in dispute that the contest is amongst persons, who joined within 10 days, the period mentioned in the respective orders of appointment as joining period.
(2.) The various appointees had secured several promotion during this period by reckoning the seniority with reference to the orders of appointment, no matter when they actually joined within the stipulated joining period. The relative age amongst the employees, according to the Rules governed the issue of seniority. A different interpretation was sought to be given to the issue through a circular that stated that the date of joining of service alone would be relevant and not the orders of appointment. The orders of appointment contained two Clauses, which fall for consideration. The Clauses are reproduced as under: "(i) this order shall take effect from the date, when the candidates present themselves before the officers concerned for joining services. (ii) the candidates are directed that they should join their duties with officers concerned within a period of 10 days from the receipt of order and if any one fails to do so, his order shall stand cancelled."
(3.) The construction, which is sought to be made by the State is that the orders of appointment would take effect from the date when the candidates presented themselves and this would include a reckoning also for seniority. This, in my view, is not appropriate and is done without giving proper meaning to Clause (ii), which allows the candidates to join within a period of 10 days and if any employee joined, therefore, on the 10th day, as per the contention of the State, he would be treated as junior to the candidates, who have joined on the first day. I would held this interpretation to be unjust and improper for understanding of how the seniority were to be reckoned. If candidates are allowed a joining time and if a person comes within that period, for the purpose of seniority, the order of merit and other things being equal, the age alone shall determine. It would be different if, there are two different dates of orders of appointment and candidates joined at different times. We are examining the issue of inter se seniority that emanates from a single order of appointment when candidates joined within the time specified. In such an event, it shall be the date of appointment that will dictate the issue of seniority and not the date of joining. This is also a just interpretation for otherwise a person, who was proximate to the place of appointment will steal a march over a person, who is far away from the place of appointment and by the only circumstance that he was not in the immediate proximity to the place of appointment, he would lose out his seniority. This would mean gross arbitrariness and discrimination in State action. A similar issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in " P. Srinivas v. M. Radhakrishna Murthy and others, (2004)2 SCC 459 ", where a candidate who had joined later but within the extended joining period was ordered to be placed higher on the seniority list on the basis of merit, over a candidate who had actually joined earlier.;