MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents assigning him seniority below those who were lower in merit list than him. Petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Manager pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents. In the merit list, which was prepared in such recruitment process, name of the petitioner found place at Sr. No. 30. Appointment order of the petitioner was issued or 20,3.1978 (Ann. 1), Appointment order required the petitioner to submit his acceptance within seven days. Petitioner accepted the appointment but requested the authorities to extend his joining period till 20.11.1978. Representation submitted by the petitioner in this respect on 21.3.1978 was accepted by the respondents vide their order dated 28.3.1978 advising him to report for duty on his cost within seven days. Petitioner thereupon sent a specific application to the respondents on 3.4.1978 in which reasons were given for his inability to join within seven days of issuance of appointment order,
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was a permanent employee of the State Government and would be completing 20 years of qualifying service on 18.11.1978 making him eligible for voluntary retirement and the consequential benefits and if he joins before that date, he would be put to loss of gratuity and pension and therefore he requested that he should be permitted to report the respondent -Bank on 20.11.1978. Case of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Directors of the respondent -Bank which vide its resolution allowed the petitioner to join by 20.11.1978. Averments to this effect have been made in para 3 of the writ petition, which the respondents have not denied. Sbsequently, however, when petitioner joined duties on 20.11.1978, respondents in their seniority list dated 13.4.1982 assigned seniority to the petitioner at Sr. No. 14 over and above respondents No. 3 to 25. They very position was. reiterated in subsequent seniority list issued on 30.6.1984. Respondents thereafter on 24.11.1994 issued a provisional seniority list in which name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 28A whereby petitioner was permitted to represent against such provisional seniority list. Petitioner vide representation dated 28.11.1994 protested against his placement at Sr. No. 28A in the said seniority list. Representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 1.12.1994. Ultimately, final seniority list was issued by the respondents on 22.4.1996 reiterating the same position. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) SHRI Kinshuk Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents have wrongly assigned seniority to the petitioner below respondents No. 3 to 25 as all those persons had appeared lower in merit than the petitioner in the select list. Reference in this connection is made to the select list Scheduled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to Regulation 13 of the Shekhawati Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1981 (for short, the 'Regulations of 1981') argued that the seniority on the post of Manager was required to be determined according to Sub -clause (2) of Rule 6 thereof. Ministry of Finance has clarified vide letter dated 6.6.1981 that an official who has been ranked higher in merit shall be treated senior to those who are placed lower in merit irrespective of their date of joining. In fact, petitioner on the basis of such seniority list was promoted to Senior Manager on 13.8.1987 and since then, he had been regularly working as Senior Manager. Certain persons challenged the selection in question on the ground that guidelines issued by the NABARD have not been followed and on that basis, selection was quashed and then necessary of fresh selection on the post of Senior Manager arose. In the result of fresh selection, however, name of the petitioner was shown below his juniors, respondents No. 3 and 4. Petitioner challenged the selection by filing writ petition wherein respondents No. 3 and 4 took a plea for the first time that petitioner should be treated as junior to them. Writ petition nevertheless was allowed and special appeal filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 against the judgment of Single Bench was dismissed by the Division Bench. Even then, the official respondents in the seniority list dated 6.4.1992 have shown name of the petitioner in the list of Senior Managers below his juniors and at that stage, he challenged the seniority. It was argued that according to Rule 13(2), inter -se seniority of officers or employees directly recruited in a batch to any grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of such recruitment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore argued that action of the respondents in treating respondents No. 3 to 25 as senior to the petitioner was thus contrary to Regulations of 1981. Impugned -orders dated 24.11.1994 and 1.12.1994 are therefore liable to be quashed and set -aside and respondents be directed to place name of petitioner in the final seniority list immediately below the name of Shri Hukum Singh Shekhawat who was shown in the seniority list dated 6.4.1992 at S. No. 7.;