C. S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) Mrs. S. Bhan, Headmistress, Government Coeducation High School, Pinana, claiming herself senior to Smt. Pritam Piari Behari Lal, Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Farmana, respondent No. 3, filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing of an order dated May 17, 1971, Annexure E, whereby she bad been assigned a place at No. 27 of the seniority list while respondent No. 3 was assigned the place in that list at No. 25. The impugned order was issued by the Director, Public Instruction, Haryana, who was impleaded as respondent No. 1. The State of Haryana is respondent No. 2 to the petition.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner is based on this fact that she entered into the Educational Service Class III as J.S.T./J.A.V. Mistress on Nov. 23, 1943, while respondent No. 3 was said to have entered the same service on Sept. 28, 1944. Confirmation of the petitioner took place on April 1, 1946, while that of respondent No 3 on Nov. 9, 1948. In the seniority list prepared for all the years till 1971 the petitioner had continued to be shown as being senior to respondent No.3. The only ground of attack on the revised seniority list is that the seniority of the petitioner could not be disturbed to her prejudice without affording any opportunity of being heard. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of all the three respondents. It was asserted that respondent No 3 bad entered service as J.A.V. Mistress on Sept. 28, 1942, and not on the date alleged by the petitioner Furthermore, respondent No. 3 was said to have been promoted in a higher grade with effect from Oct. 13, 1952, and was then confirmed in that grade on April 21, 1953. The petitioner, on the other hand, was promoted in that grade on June 1, 1953, and confirmed on June 1, 1954 It was then alleged that on account of a clerical mistake the respondent No 3 was shown in the relevant as being junior to the petitioner though in fact she all along had been senior to her. The impugned order was said to have been issued only for the rectification of the mistake. The respondents in support of their contention relied upon the notification dated March 30, 1964, Annexure R-4. Respondent No. 3 was shown in the seniority list at No 35 and it was mentioned in respect of her that date of her entry into service was Sept. 28, 1942. The petitioner in that list is shown at No 48 and the date of her entry into service has been Shown as Nov. 23, 1943. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not at all challenge the correctness of the position as shown in Annexure R-4. He has only urged that there were some authorities for showing that even if there had been a mistake in the a notice was required to be issued to the person to whose disadvantage the rectification was to be made. He cited S. Gurdev Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1974 (2) S.L.R. 211 . In this case provisional integrated seniority list had been prepared by the Central Government. Some mistake had crept in the preparation of the list. It was laid down that before rectifying the mistake rules of natural justice should be observed and without affording an opportunity to the opposite party the mistake could not be rectified, It was a case in which the Central Government on the recommendation of an Advisory Committee had assigned a provisional integrated seniority, It was the Governor who tried to rectify the mistake and it was held that he was not competent to do so even if there was any mistake. When in the present case a mistake admittedly took place and the ; same was rectified, no useful purpose would be served in at first quashing the present seniority list and then directing the authorities concerned to prepare afresh a list after notice to the petitioner. The second authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a Division Bench authority of our own High Court reported as Union of India and others Vs. Madan Lal, 1971 S.L.R. 151 . It has been held that the fixing of the seniority of a Government servant to his disadvantage would seriously affect his future chances of promotion in service and that under the Principles of natural justice he must be given notice before revising his seniority in the list to his detriment, it was found that no opportunity had been given to the respondent either by the State or by the Advisory Committee or the Central Government. The order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order was upheld in the Letters Patent appeal. It was a case in which 4 clerks has made a representation against another Clerk and without hearing him the seniority was changed. It has again to be repeated that respondent No. 3 will not at all gain any advantage if the present list is quashed and a fresh one is prepared Thus under the circumstances of the present case I do not see any force in the present petition and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.. 200. Petition Dismissed.;