- (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No. 881 of 1986, titled as Desh Raj Lamba v. State of Haryana and others; CWP No. 2104 of 1987, titled as Laxmi Narain and others v. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 4082 of 1985, titled as Vinod Kumar Jain and others v. State of Haryana and another. The dispute raised in these petitions is in respect of inter se seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents. They have been working on the post of Clerk/Assistant in the Haryana Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh or under the Director of Employment, Haryana.
(2.) Few facts would be necessary to put the controversy in its proper perspective, which are being mentioned from CWP No. 881 of 1986. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued in the year 1970 for appointment to the post of Clerk. The petitioner applied and was selected. Accordingly, he was issued a letter of appointment dated 28.7.1971 and he joined the State Service Class III at the Haryana Civil Secretariat as a Clerk on 16.8.1971 (P-1). The petitioner was confirmed against the post of Clerk w.e.f. 6.2.1973 (P-2) after satisfactory completion of probationary period prescribed under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules, 1952 (for brevity, to be referred as 'the 1952 Rules'). The name of the petitioner, in the order of his confirmation is mentioned at Sr. No. 10.
(3.) Respondent Nos. 2 to 37 were also appointed on the post of Clerk when they applied in pursuance to another but later advertisement issued by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (P-3). It is appropriate to mention that the advertisement had sought to fill up the posts of Clerk reserved for Ex- servicemen in various Government departments in the State of Haryana. They also went through the selection process and were appointed as Clerks in State Service Class III in the Haryana Civil Secretariat against temporary vacancies. A copy of the appointment letter dated 25.1.1973 issued to one of the respondents has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. It is claimed that for the first time regular vacancies became available on 29.11.1977 and as such respondent Nos. 2 to 37 should have been considered against those posts for confirmation. Reliance has been placed on Rule 9 of the 1952 Rules, which stipulates determination of inter se seniority on the basis of 'substantive appointment' on such posts. A copy of the seniority list as it stood on 1.1.1979, which was prepared by keeping in view Rule 9 of the 1952 rules, was issued wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 148 by reflecting the date of his entry into service as 16.8.1971. It further shows that the petitioner was substantively appointed to the post of Clerk on 6.2.1973. The names of respondent Nos. 2 to 37, in the seniority list figure under sub-heading 'Temporary Clerks' and they have been allocated the date of entry into service between 25.1.1973 to 26.2.1973. The column concerning substantive appointment has been kept vacant and special remarks have been added showing them to be Ex-servicemen.;