Sukhdev Singh, J. - (1.) (Oral) - This judgment will dispose of five Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 279, 276, 277, 278 and 896 of 1986) which have been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated January 9, 1986, allowing the writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein quashing the seniority list (Annexure P-13 to the writ petition) issued by the State Government in the year 1984 and issuing a direction to frame new seniority list on the basis of continuous length of service.
(2.) A broad-brush factual backdrop will help delineate the contours of pristinely forensic controversy raised in the writ petitions. Pleadings in the writ petition (CWP No. 2894 of 1983) culminating in LPA No. 279 of 1986 furnish this factual backdrop.
(3.) The cadre of Block Development and Panchayat Officers was created in the State of Punjab in October, 1960 with effect from November 1, 1969. Shiv Dayal Singh and Harbans Singh Gill, writ petitioners No. 1 and 2, were appointed as Block Development and Panchayat Officers in November, 1962 as direct recruits on being selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Respondents No. 3 to 9 to the writ petition, namely, Sarvshri Ram Murti Sharma, Dev Brat Sharma, Parshan Singh, Kaur Singh Roomi, Kamal Singh, Nasib Singh Chaudhar and Aridaman Singh Dhillon were appointed as Block Development and Panchayat Officers between September 1963 and June 1966 not as direct recruits but from various other sources. On April 26, 1966, final gradation list (Annexure P-l) was circulated. It is mentioned therein that tentative seniority list of the Block Development and Panchayat Officers who were recruited during the period from November 1959 to December 31,1962, was circulated amongst the Block Development and Panchayat Officers concerned vide Memo. No. 6395-4ECDI-65/23591 dated June 26, 1965, inviting objections and representations. In response to that letter, some of the Block Development and Panchayat Officers had submitted their representations and some of them had made a request for disclosure of the formula for the fixation of seniority. It is stated that the question or formula for the fixation of the seniority was already known to all the officers concerned; that the Block Development and Panchayat Officers were recruited from three different sources, i.e. (1) through Public Service Commission, (2) by promotion amongst the Government servants, and (3) out of political sufferers/Political Workers in the ratio of 55%, 30% and 15% respectively. The inter se seniority as assigned by all three above mentioned sources of recruitment is kept in tact. The dates of their joining are not taken into consideration. The sole basis adopted for assigning seniority is that amongst the Public Service Commission nominees, recruits from the other two sources were interpolated in the same ratio in which their recruitment could not be made from the respective sources. The placement of the officers from three sources afore-mentioned in a block of 20 posts is given as an illustration. It is pertinent to mention that by framing the final gradation list the date of joining service as Block Development and Panchayat Officers was not taken into consideration. Respondents have applied the rule of rotation along with the quota rule while framing the seniority list. Some of the directly appointed officers who had been adversely affected by this seniority list filed writ petitions in this Court.;