I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) Retirement of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 4, since the filing of this petition, has not solved the controversy with regard to the fixation of seniority of the remaining petitioner vis-a-vis the other three respondents as Assistant Superintendents Revenue, working as such in the various offices of the Deputy Commissioners and Commissioners in Haryana. It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of this petition, the petitioners as well as the respondents were working as officiating Assistant Superintendents and none of them had been confirmed in that post. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, through a very detailed and exhaustive order dated 23rd of June 1971 Annexure 'B' after hearing the patties, fixed their seniority in a manner whereby respondent No. 5 Har Bhagwan was made senior to Jasbir Singh Petitioner on the basis of a presumptive date of appointment as Assistant Superintendent (Revenue and Records) with effect from 8th of May, 1962. It is this order of the Commissioner which is being assailed before me by the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that petitioner Jasbir Singh neither dispute the seniority of other two respondents, i.e., Ajaib Singh and Bodh Raj nor is the fixation of such seniority in any way assailable It is further not in dispute that since the filing of the petition, the petitioners and respondents have since been appointed as Assistant Superintendents Revenue and further promoted as Superintendents with effect from various dates in which capacities they are now working. They were duly confirmed first as Assistant Superintendents Revenue and then as Superintendents Regarding the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 5. Har Bhagwan, the latter has on all occasions been confirmed a day earlier to the date of confirmation of the petitioner Respondent No 5 was confirmed as Assistant Superintendent Revenue with effect from 27th of April, 1969, and the petitioner was given his date of confirmation on 28th of April 1969. Similarly, respondent No. 5 was confirmed as superintendent with effect from 1st of Dec., 1971 and the petitioner was given his date of confirmation as 2nd of Dec. 1971.
(2.) Petitioner Jasbir Singh was appointed on promotion as officiating Assistant Superintendent (R&R) in Deputy Commissioner's Office with effect from Jan. 28, 1963. Respondent No. 5, Har Bhagwan was so appointed on April 17, 1969. In the same order the Commissioner purported to give him a presumptive appointment an Assistant Superintendent (R&R), Deputy Commissioners Office, with effect from May 8, 1962 though in fact he continued to hold -the officiating post of Assistant Superintendent (R&R) Commissioner's Office till the date of the filing of the petition.
(3.) Vide the impugned order, Annexure 'B' the Commissioner fixed the seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 5, as follows:- JUDGEMENT_73_LAWS(P&H)11_19791.html It is apparent that the Commissioner himself had expressed his doubt about the legality and his competence to give presumptive date of appointment to respondent No. 5 with effect from May 8, 1962. however ordered that in case the Legal Remembrancer opines respondent No. 5 could be given such a presumptive date of appointment with effect from May 8 1962. then he (respondent No. 5) will also have his seniority in the class of Assistant Superintendents (R&R) Deputy Commissioner's Office, with effect from May 8, 1962. This order of the Commissioner is now asserted on two grounds- firstly, under Rule 16 of the Punjab District Subordinate Services Rules, the seniority of the parties could only be determined by the date of their substantive appointments in the service and as none of the parties had been so confirmed, there was no question of fixation of seniority by the Commissioner under the above said rule; and secondly the Commissioner was not competent to give any such presumptive date of appointment to respondent No.3 to the prejudice of petitioner Jasbir Singh. To my mind, the petitioner is wholly right in making these submissions Rule 16 lays down in no uncertain terms that the seniority of members in each cadre of service shall be determined by the dates of their substantive appointments to such class. In the face of this and the admitted position that none of the parties on the date of the passing of the impugned order had been confirmed as Assistant Superintendent, Revenue, there was no question of fixation of seniority under Rule 16 The impugned order .therefore, is liable to be quashed for this short reason alone. Otherwise also the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any principle or rule under which the Commissioner was competent to give any presumptive date of appointment to respondent No. 5 to the prejudice of the petitioner.;