- (1.) Vide this judgment four Civil Writ Petitions (No. 2805, 3696, 4823 and 4965 of 1981) are being disposed of as common questions of facts and law are involved. The main judgment is prepared in Civil Writ Petition No. 2895 of 1981. In two of the writ petitions (Nos. 2805 and 3606) the impugned orders are the same, i.e. notification dated May 22,1971 Annexure P/2 and letter dated June 1,1981, Annexure P-4 in Writ Petition No. 2805 and Annexure P-7 in Writ Petition No. 3696. 2. The matter relates to fixation of seniority of the members' of the service constituted under Haryana Services of engineers Class II Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch) Rules and thereafter fixation of seniority in service constituted under Haryana Service of Engineers Class I Public Works Department (B&RBranch) Rules. The petitioners in these writ petitions and the private respondent/respondents were recruited as temporary Assistant Engineers Class II erstwhile State of Punjab through the Public Service Commission, the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II Public Works Department (B&R Branch) Rules, which were subsequently applied to Haryana also, (hereinafter to be called as "the Class II Rules") came into force on February 11, 1965. On enforcement of these rules the seniority of the members of the service i.e. the Assistant Engineers already working, was to be determined in accordance with the rules given in appendix 'G'. As per allegations of the petitioners, after enforcement of the class II rules of 1965 the petitioners were found suitable for such service and were declared so likewise, whereas the private respondents namely P.P. Luthra and R.N. Jindal were not so declared. The erstwhile State of Punjab decided to terminate the services of these two persons. However, the orders could not be communicated before the reorganisation. The State of Haryana, to whom these persons were allocated, communicated the orders. Ultimately such orders were successfully challenged by Shri P.P.Luthra in the High Court. The State of Haryana after reorganisation again considered the cases of P.p. Luthra and R.N. Jindal and on the advice of the Public Service Commission held that they were suitable for induction in service Class II w.e.f. February 19,1965. This decision was taken on May 22, 1971, notification annexure P-2. Subsequently vide order dated June 1, 1981, it was decided to keep order dated may 22, 1971, in fact. Thus, in these two writ petitions (Nos. 2805 and 3696) the petitioners, who were placed junior to P.P. Luthra and R.N. Jindal, challenged the orders aforesaid. They also made a grouse that unless this matter of fixation of seniority of Class II Service is determined, fixation of seniority of members in Class I service could not be finalised. 3. Since the petitioners and others were promoted from time to time during this period, the question of fixation of seniority in class I service also cropped up. Order dated October 15, 1981, (Annexure P-11 in Civil Writ petition No. 4823) was passed under Rule 8(9) of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I, Public Works Department (B&R Branch) Rules, 1960, as applicable in Haryana, in consultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission, finding P.P. Luthra as suitable for appointment to the Haryana Service of Engineers class I, w.e.f. December 2, 1970. It is on this basis that P.P. Luthra's seniority in Class I service is determined that L.R. Pawa and others have challenged the same in this writ petition (No. 4823) alongwith making challenge to the orders dated May 22, 1971 and June 1, 1981, already referred to above in the other writ petitions. 4. In the fourth writ petition (No. 4965) S.L. Dhupar and K.L. Munjral also challenged the order dated October 15, 1981, Annexure P-10. It is in this manner that all the four writ petitions are being disposed of. 5. In Civil Writ Petition No. 2805/1981 State of Haryana filed the reply, broadly admitting the facts as already narrated above. It was stated that after reorganisation, the State Government constituted a Screening Committee for deciding the question of suitability of P.P. Luthra and R.N. Jindal in their meeting dated November 20,1970, on the basis of the recerd upto the end of the financial year 1969-70. Both these persons were adjudged to be suitable. The Public Service Commission also gave their approval on April 20, 1971. The State Government issued notification on May 22, 1971, appointing both of them to Class II service w.ei. February 19, 1965, i.e. the date of formation of the service. It is further mentioned that the Public Service Commission raised an issue with respect to the date i.e. February 19,1965, as such matter was not referred to the Commission. Subsequently the State Government took a decision on June 1,1981, holding that the matter decided vide notification dated May 22,1971, was to be kept intact, similar stand has been taken up by the private respondent P.P. Luthra in his reply. On behalf of the petitioners, replication was filed. 6. Since similar pleas were taken by the parties in the other cases, it is not considered appropriate to refer to the same. 7. On On enforcement of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II Public Works Department (B&R Branch) Rules, 1965, the question of determination of seniority of the persons already in job was to be decided in accordance with the rules given in Appendix 'G' as provided under Rule 3, the rules in the Appendix 'G' read as under:- See Rule 3 (1) On the date of commencement of these rules, the service shall comprise of:- (a) Officers who are holding the posts of Assistant Engineers in a sub- stantive capacity in Class II Service, as it existed immediately before the commencement of these rules (hereinafter referred o as the existing Class II service). (b) Officers who are not holding the posts of Assistant Engineers in a substantive capacity but who were selected, with the approval of the commission for the post of temporary Assistant Engineers; and (c) Officers who are not holding the posts of Assistant Engineers in a substantive capacity but who were selected, with the approval of the Commission, from the members of PWD (B&R) Sectional Officer's (Engineering) Service or Draftsman and Tracers Service for Officiating as Sub Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in clause (b) and (c) above officers who are temporary Assistant Engineers or officiating Sub Divisional Officers on the date of commencement of these rules but have not been declared with the approval of the Commission as fit for existing Class II Service will not be deemed to be members of the Service constituted under these rules even though they have been appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers or officiating Sub Divisional Officers with the approval of the Public Service Commission. On being declared by the Commission as suitable for appointment to the service in accordance with these rules, they shall become members of the service as provided for the paragraph 2. The Officers who according to clause (d) of paragraph 1 above are not members of the service on the date of commencement of these rules bur are declared fit for appointment to the service in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 9 shall be deemed to be members of the service to the extent of the number of vacancies which exist at the time they are declared fit for appointment to the service and the officers who cannot be absorbed on the existing vacancies shall be appointed against sanctioned ex-cadre posts." 8. It is not necessary to reproduce rule 12 of the rules under which seniority of the persons to be recruited after enforcement of the rules aforesaid was to be determined. The determination of seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents is governed by the rules given in Appendix 'G', as reproduced above. Rule 1(a) provides for fixing seniority of the Officers who were working in the substantive capacity. Sub-Rule (b) thereafter refers to the candidates who were holding the posts of Assistant engineers in the substantive capacity who were selected with the approval of the Commission for the post of temporary Assistant Engineers. This sub-clause (b) is applicable to the parties in this case. Sub-rule (d) is in the form of a proviso to sub- rule (b). This requires that such of the temporary Assistant Engineers were further to be declared as fit to hold the posts in theservice by the commission and on doing so, they would be deemed to be members of the Service constituted under these rules even though they were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers or the officiating Sub divisional Engineers with the approval of the Service Commission. The stand of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that when the matter of suitability of P.R Luthra and others was finally decided, giving them seniority over the petitioners, no notice/opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The other ground taken up is that since orders determining suitability and fixing of seniority of P.R Luthra and R.N. Jindal were passed after enforcement of the Punjab reorganisation Act, the same would adversely affect the seniority and interest of the petitioners. Since approval of the Central Government was not obtained, the impugned orders would be violating provisions of Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. After giving due consideration to these grounds, I am of the view that there is no force therein. The seniority of all temporary Assistant Engineers in service at the time of enforcement of Class II Rules of 1965 to be declared in seniority as members of the Service. At that time, as per Rule 1(d) their suitability was to be determined by the Screening Committee and approved by the Public Service Commission. For determining such suitability of such of the temporary Assistant Engineers in service, it was not required by the rules that notice or opportunity of hearing should be given. The matter was to be decided by the Screening Committee as well as by the Commission on perusal of the service record of the persons concerned. No doubt, before reorganisation, as is the case, some orders were passed by the Punjab State but the same could not be held to have any legal force as the same were not communicated or enforced before the reorganisation of the States. Rather enforcement of such an order by the successive State, i.e. the State of Haryana, was held to be bad in law by the High court. It was in such a situation that the State of Haryana constituted a fresh Screening Committee for determining the matter of suitability of P.P. Luthra and R.N. Jindal as required under Rule 1(b) of the rules aforesaid. The decision taken by the State Government on the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the Commission is based on the service record and is not open to challenge. Rather the grounds suggested to impugn such orders are not tenable as it is not shown that the provisions of any law or rules were violated. Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act reads as under:- "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union of any State: Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government." 9. By fixing seniority in accordance with the rules, it cannot be said that any change prejudicial to the service conditions of the employees has been introduced, which required prior approval of the Central Government. After reorganisation of the Act, the State has not enforced any other criteria for determining seniority of the members of the service that it could be said that there is a change in the service conditions of the persons already in service. Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act has not at all been violated by the State in determining question of seniority of P.P. Luthra and R.N. Jindal, as referred to above. 10. If the impugned orders in the two writ petitions, referred to above, are valid in law, the consequential effect would be that further promotion and determination of seniority of members of Class I service would be in accordance with law as in the other two writ petitions the challenge was on the basis of the orders determining suitability and fixing of seniority of P.P. Luthra in Class II service. For the reasons recorded above, all the four writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.;