- (1.) The petitioners, who are all working as District Development and Panchayat Officers (hereinafter to be referred as 'BDPOs') under the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, State of Punjab, have filed the instant writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the official respondents to declare them to be senior to private respondents 5 to 12. Further challenge is to the initial promotion of the private respondents to the post of BDPOs.
(2.) Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioners joined on the post of BDPOs on 25.8.1995 in pursuance to a regular selection process conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission. On the other hand, private respondents 5 to 12 who were already working as Social Education and Panchayat Officers (SEPOs) were promoted to the post of BDPOs on 28.7.1995. In terms of seniority list dated 27.1.2006, Annexure P6, issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, the seniority in respect of the BDPO cadre was determined. There is no dispute as regards the fact that prior to the issuance of the same, objections had been invited and it was only thereafter that the final seniority list at Annexure P6 was issued on 27.1.2006. It is also not a matter of dispute that in such final seniority list of the cadre of BDPOs issued in January 2006, the private respondents were ranked senior to the petitioners.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has impugned such seniority position in terms of raising a contention that even though the petitioners had been selected in pursuance to a selection process whereby the results had been declared on 6.7.1995 by the Punjab Public Service Commission and duly communicated to the Government on 11.7.1995, but it was on account of an oblique motive in connivance with the private respondents that the joining of the petitioners on the post of BDPOs was deliberately delayed till 25.8.1995. Accordingly, it has been argued that in the meantime the private respondents managed their promotion to the post in question i.e. BDPOs on 28.7.1995 and it is on account of such alleged extraneous exercise that the private respondents had stolen a march over the petitioners. Learned counsel would even place reliance upon Rule 13 of the Punjab Development and Panchayat (Class-II) Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as '1974 Rules') to contend that in the eventuality of two or more members being appointed on the same date, then in terms of seniority, a member recruited by direct appointment is to rank senior to the member recruited otherwise. On the strength of Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules, the argument raised is that had the joining of the petitioners not been deliberately delayed, they would have ranked senior to the private respondents.;