After the bifurcation of the Punjab State Electricity Board, the service of the appellant was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board.
2 appointed on June 21, 1963, but his name was placed below that of Ved Prakash Lalit Serial No.
In the seniority list also, the name of the appellant was placed against serial No.
In other words, the names of the respondents Nos.
It has been specifically stated in the said order that the officers mentioned therein, that is, the appellant and the respondents Nos.
It may be stated here that respondent No.
Hence this appeal.
As a result of a disciplinary proceeding held against the appellant, on April 15, 1968.
2 to 19, had satisfactorily companypleted the probationary period of two years.
2 and 4 to 19, the appellant filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court.
From the Judgment and order dated 1.2.1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
It, however, appears from the said order that respondents Nos.2 to 14 were companyfirmed in the posts of Assistant Engineers, Class II, with effect from April 1, 1969, while the appellant was companyfirmed in that post with effect from December 1, 1969.
2 and 4 to 19, who are all juniors to the appellant, were placed above the name of the appellant in the seniority list without any reason whatsoever.
3 appointed on June 7, 1963 and above the name of Sudesh Kumar Tuli Serial No.
Consequently, the appellants name was placed last of all the companyfirmed officers.
2 to 19 were companyfirmed as Assistant Engineers, Class II.
a minor penalty for the stoppage of one increment without any future effect was imposed on the appellant by the Board.
301 of 1984.
45 respondent No.
After the expiry of one year, the appellant was, however, given the increment.
In the meantime, some substantive posts of Assistant Engineers, Class II, fell vacant and by an order dated March 30, 1970 of the Secretary to the Board, the appellant and the respondents Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Although the probationary period of the appellant was companypleted on June 10, 1965, he was number companyfirmed within a reasonable time thereafter.
There is also numbermaterial to show that his period of probation was extended.
62 , who was appointed on April 7, 1964.
The appellant was appointed an Assistant Engineer II with effect from June 10, 1963 in the Punjab State Electricity Board on probation for two years which ended on June 10, 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana whereby the High Court dismissed in limine the letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant relating to his seniority.
46 respondent No.
As the appellant was appointed on June 10, 1963, his name should have been placed below the name of Pawan Kumar Aggarwal Serial No.
1410 of 1982.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Board dated March 30, 1970 and also the seniority list wherein the appellants name has been placed below the names of his juniors, namely, respondents Nos.
D. Sharrna for the Appellant.
Parmod Dayal for the Respondents.
