- (1.) The petitioners impugn the order of the State Government dated 21.12.1979 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondent No. 4 has been placed senior to them in Department (Building and Roads Branch).
(2.) Though the averment of the petitioners in para 8 of the petition that vide seniority lists dated 2nd/5th of May, 1979 and 19th October, 1979, they had been assigned seniority at serial No. 64 and 72 respectively (Admittedly, the name of respondents No. 4 does not figure in these lists.) has been denied on behalf of the repondent-authorities with the plea that those lists cannot possibly be termed as seniority list yet it is manifestly clear from the contents of Annexure P-5 itself that the seniority of the petitioners has been disturbed to their disadvantage. This is how the operative part of the order Annexure P-5 reads :- "Now, therefore, in pursuance of Rule 12(4) read with Rule 9(12) of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II, Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, the seniority of A.M.I.E./ Degree Holder Sectional Officer keeping in view their eligibility w.e.f. 1.1.1974 (as the promotions made on 12/1974) on the eligibility on 1.1.1973 was not in order in view of Rule 8 of the Rules ibid), the Governor of Punjab is pleased to fix seniority of the A.M.I.E./Degree Holder Sectional Officers who were appointed as Sub-Divisional Engineers vide orders dated 12/1974 and 7.11.1979 as under :- The grouse of the petitioners is that this alteration in their seniority has been ordered without affording them any hearing or any prior show-cause notice. Reply to this stand of theirs is contained in para 10 of the written-statement filed by the Chief Engineer, Sh. O.P. Malhotra on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 and it reads as follows :- ".............The order 21st December, 1979 were issued so as to restore to Respondent No. 4 his due position among the Sub-Divisional Engineers with respect to his seniority inter se with the petitioners in the cadre from which they have been promoted and to bring the act of their appointment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 read with Rules 6 and 9 ibid. The question of issuing any notice to the petitioners was not, thus, considered necessary".
(3.) By now it is well laid down that no order disturbing the seniority of a civil servant to his disadvantage can possibly be passed without affording hearing to him as in the absence of the same, the principles of natural justice would stand violated. It is, thus, patent that the above-noted stand of the respondent-authorities cannot possibly be sustained. In view of that I, without expressing any opinion on merits or on the points raised in the petition, quash the impugned order Annexure P-5 and send the case back to the State Government to reconsider the same and re-decide it after affording a hearing to the persons concerned by passing a speaking order in accordance with the rules and the observations made above. I further direct the said authorities to finalise this consideration and decision of the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. I pass no order as to costs.;