TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners raise a challenge to the seniority list dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P -5) of the Assistant Directors under the Department of Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development Punjab, wherein they have been shown junior to private respondent No.4.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are that the petitioners who all belong to the general category were initially appointed as Fishery Officers on 28.09.1978, 28.09.1978 and 13.02.1980 respectively. Respondent No.4 who belongs to the scheduled castes category was appointed subsequently as Fishery Officer on 23.06.1980. However, by enjoying the benefit of reservation, respondent No.4 earned promotion as Senior Fishery Officer on 22.09.1987 and was further granted promotion as Assistant Director on 10.09.1990. In comparison the petitioners earned promotions as per their turn as Senior Fishery Officer on 19.12.1990, 15.10.1991 and 01.01.1992 respectively and thereafter were promoted as Assistant Directors vide order dated 29.07.2005. A tentative seniority list of Assistant Directors was circulated on 16.11.2007 in which the petitioners were shown at seniority Nos.10, 14 and 15 respectively whereas respondent No.4 was shown junior at seniority No.18. As such tentative seniority list was not being finalized, the petitioners filed CWP No.18115 of 2012 in this Court and the same was disposed of on 14.09.2012 in which directions were issued to the respondents to finalize the seniority inter se Assistant Directors within a period of six months strictly in accordance with law.
(3.) ON 17.10.2012, a fresh tentative seniority list was circulated by the respondent -department in which private respondent No.4 was shown senior to the petitioners. Objections were immediately submitted by the petitioners taking a stand that such tentative seniority list is in violation of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case. However, the impugned final seniority list dated 26.03.2013 of the Assistant Directors has been issued in which respondent No.4 has been shown at seniority No.1 whereas the petitioners have been placed at seniority Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively. Mr. D.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajit Singh Janjua & others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, 1999 (4) RSJ 211 (S.C.) and would contend that even though a reserved category employee can be promoted on a higher post on the basis of reservation (roster point) but whenever a senior general category employee "catches up" with the reserved category junior employee on the higher post, then the senior general category employee has to be declared senior and is to be granted benefits accordingly. Counsel submits that the State of Punjab has issued Instructions dated 22.10.1999 (Annexure P -1) to implement the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case (supra) but the respondent -department in terms of issuing the impugned seniority list dated 26.03.2013 has acted in violation of the judgment as also the Instructions dated 22.10.1999. Mr. Rawat would contend that insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the post of Fishery Officer is to be taken as Level -I, post of Senior Fishery Officer is Level -II, post of Assistant Director is Level -III and the post of Deputy Director would be the Level -IV. Accordingly, it has been argued that in the light of the judgment rendered in Ajit Singh Janjua's case (supra), the petitioners have "caught up" with respondent No.4 at Level -III i.e. on the post of Assistant Director and respondent No.4 having not been further promoted to Level -IV i.e. the post of Deputy Director, the seniority of the petitioners i.e. senior general category employees has to be fixed over and above respondent No.4 in the cadre of Assistant Directors i.e. at Level -III.;