I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This judgment disposes of two connected C.W.P. Nos. 5532 and 5533 of 1985 as the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that practically identical questions of lav/ and fact are involved therein. However, for facility of reference only the facts stated in C.W.P. No. 5532 are adverted to for purposes of this judgment.
(2.) The petitioner makes a grouse of the Government order dated Sept. 23, 1985 (Annexure P. 10), whereby his seniority in Punjab Veterinary Service Class I (now known as Punjab Animal Husbandry Service, Class I), (for short, the Service), has been disturbed by changing his date of appointment to the Service from Dec. 24, 1969 to Feb. 19, 1976. It is the undisputed position that by virtue of this change he has been made junior to respondent Nos. 2 to 7. This change is purported to have been ordered in view of an earlier judgment of mine in C.W.P. No. 1714 of 1974 (Jai Ram Sharma and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others) decided on Jan. 27, 1981. If I may say so, I see not only a misreading of this judgment on the part of the authorities concerned but a complete distortion of the same. No doubt the petitioner. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Nat, was one of the respondents in that petition, i. e., CWP No. 1714 of 1974, yet the controversy therein related to the non-promotion of the petitioners from Class III to Class II Service even though they were senior to the private respondents. While allowing that petition on the ground that the petitioners had a right to be considered for promotion being senior to the private respondents, I issued the following directions:- "In the light of the discussion above, this petition is allowed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotions to Class II service and confirmation therein and if found suitable even to the higher service of Class-I with effect from the dates their juniors were so promoted or confirmed Such promotions and confirmation if brought about would also entitle them to all consequential reliefs which flow from the same", All the petitioners in that petition except Dr. G.S. Sohi, who is respondent No. 7 in this petition, have by now retired and are no more in service. It is not the case of the State authorities that while giving relief to any of the petitioners in C.W P. No. 1714 in the light of the directions referred to above, the seniority of the petitioner had to be disturbed. So it is manifest that this judgment has only been used as a cover to disturb the.seniority of the petitioner to give relief to some of the respondents, if not all. by making them senior to the petitioner. As a matter of fact the seniority of the private parties to this litigation was never in controversy or under consideration in the earlier writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 1714. It is conceded at all hands that the seniority in the Service is governed by Rule 19 of the Punjab Veterinary Service (Class I) Rule, 1930 which were in force at the relevant time and this rule reads as follows:- "19. An officer's seniority on appointment to the Punjab Veterinary Service Class I, will be determined with regard to the date on which he is appointed substantively on probation to the above service As between persons appointed on the same date, seniority will go by age. and promoted officers will carry inter se their previous seniority in Class II". It is abundantly clear from a reading of this rule that the Seniority of a member of the Service is dependent on his substantive appointment to the Service. Dr. Harbhajan Singh petitioner, though had initially been promoted to Class I vide order dated Dec. 24, 1969 (Annexure P. 1) yet later by an order dated Jan. 8.1974 (Annexure P. 3), was made substantive in the Service with effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., Dec. 24, 1969 It is thus manifest that he was appointed to the Service on substantive basis in terms of Rule 19 referred to above with effect from Dec. 24, 1969. It is again the undisputed position that none of the private respondents had been so appointed to the Service prior to that date and were rather promoted on different dates but much later to Dec. 24, 1969 It is thus patent in the light of Rule 19 read with orders Annexures P.l, and P.3, that the petitioner is senior to the private respondents in Class I Service. However, on b half of respondents Nos. 2 and 4, i e. Dr. R.S Grewal and Dr. Amrik Singh, respectively, all that is being contended is that though they were senior to the petitioner in Class II, yet their cases were never considered when lie was promoted to Class I vide order Annexure P.l. This submission on the fact of it is too late in the day. As already pointed out, the petitioner was promoted to Class I on Dec. 24, 1969. Further it is the stand of the petitioner that when he was promoted to the post of Technical Expert Poultry, a post in Class I, vide order Annexure P. 1, neither of these two respondents was qualified for such a promotion and as a matter of fact neither of them belonged to Poultry Sec. of the Animal Husbandry Department. This stand of the petitioner is not controverted by the State authorities or by these respondents in their written statements. In the face of this none of these respondents can now be heard to say that the promotion of the petitioner on Dec. 24, 1969, vide Annexure P.l, was in any way unsustainable.
(3.) In the light of the discussion above the petitioner has obviously to succeed. I, therefore, quash order Annexure P.10 whereby his date of appointment to Class I has been changed from Dec. 24, 1969 to Feb. 19, 1976. Similarly order Annexure P.9 in C.W.P. No. 5533 of 1985 deserves to be set aside and I order accordingly. For clarity's sake it may be mentioned here that the date of appointment of the petitioner, i.e. Dr. Lachhman Singh Toor, in CWP 5533, would be taken to be Jan. 29, 1971 when he was appointed to Class I vide order Annexure P.l and not Feb. 19, 1976, as was sought to be done vide the impugned order. Both the petitioners are held entitled to the costs against the State which I determine at Rs. 500 in each case. Petition allowed.;