- (1.) Whether the inter se seniority of District Food and Supplies Controllers is governed exelusively by the dates of their continuous appointment to the post by virtue of rule 10(2) and irrespective of the quota of 33 per cent for their direct appointment under rule 6(g) of the Punjab Food and Supplies Department (State Service, Class II) Rules, 1966 is the sole question which arises for adjudication in this writ petition.
(2.) I take the view that the matter is concluded in favour of the petitioners by the recent Full Bench decision in Narender Singh Rao v. The State of Haryana, 1978 CurLJ(Civ&Cri) 124 C.W.P. No. 100 of 1977, decided on the 13th of December, 1977 , and it, therefore, suffices to refer to the facts with relative brevity. At the very outset, however, it may be noticed that the posts of Assistant Directors' Food and Supplies Department and District Food and Supplies Controllers are identical and equivalent, the sole difference in nomenclature having relevance to the fact whether the individual incumbent is working in the office or in the field. The two petitioners are promotees who were selected for the posts of District Food and Supplies Controllers on the 16th of September, 1968 and the 18th of September, 1968 respectively. On the other hand respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are direct recruits to the post of District Food and Supplies Controllers and were appointed on probation thereto on the 21st of January, 1970 and 15th of February, 1971 respectively. Rule 6 of the Punjab Food and Supplies Department (State Service Class II) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the Rules) provides that the appointment of District Food and Supplies Controllers is to be made from three sources, namely, by promotion, by transfer of an Administrative Officer, Food and Supplies, or by direct appointment, and with regard to the latter it lays down that 33 per cent of the posts shall be filled by the same method. Rule 8 lays down that a person appointed to the service shall remain on probation for period of two years, if appointed by direct recruitment and one year if recruited by any other method and further provides that the maximum period of probation shall in no case exceed three years.
(3.) It is the petitioners' case that they had completed the probationary period of one year already even at the time when respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were first appointed in the service on probation and in any case they had completed the maximum period of probation on the 16th of September, 1971 and 18th of September, 1971 respectively and must, therefore, be deemed as confirmed in the posts they were holding. Now the provision governing the seniority inter se is Rule 10 which lays down that for the said purpose the service shall be divided into four groups and group (ii) deals with Assistant Directors, Food and Supplies and District Food and Supplies Controllers which posts, as already noticed, are equivalent to each other. The material provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 is in the following terms :- "10(1) x x x x x x x x x (2) The seniority inter se of members of the service under each group shall be determined by the dates of their continuous appointments in the service".;