No appeal was preferred thereagainst.
c a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, directing the respondents to fix pay of the petitioners after taking into companysideration their ad hoc service towards grant of increments etc.
and to release their arrears along with interest Rs.180 per annum.
A.K. Aggarwal has been treated to be joined on regular basis from the date of his joining on ad hoc basis.
The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court by an order dated 23.11.1992 directing that the said respondents shall be deemed to be in the service of the respondent on a regular basis from the date of their initial appointment, holding After companysidering the entire matter, the companytention of the learned companynsel for the respondents deserves to be rejected.
Respondent No.4 was appointed on a temporary post on 27.9.1984, whereas the appellant was appointed on 5.10.1984.
Though the services of the petitioner No.1 stood terminated by serving him a numberice dated November 11, 1983, yet he has number relieved and was allowed to companytinue on the post after he gave an undertaking that in case extension is number granted, he will number claim any salary etc.
The principal question which arises for companysideration herein is as to whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant can be said to have any locus standi to file the application for review of the said judgment dated 23.11.1992.
The said order dated 27.01.1996 issued by the respondent No.1 is also placed on record by the respondent No.5 as Annexure R 5/13.
They filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 2.6.1990, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs a a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, quashing the impugned Annexure P/9.
However, another seniority list was published on 20.5.2004 wherein they were shown as senior to the appellant.
Respondent No.5 is said to have been appointed on a temporary post by an order dated 7.6.1985.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as Sectional Officers on an ad hoc basis on or about 11.11.1982.
Allegedly, a seniority list was published on 18.4.1992 wherein the appellant was shown as senior to the respondent No.5 being at serial No.16 and respondent No.5 was shown as junior to him being placed at serial No.18.
Appellant and others who claimed themselves to be seniors to respondent Nos.
Respondent No.4 was appointed on temporary post before appellant and was also shown senior to appellant in seniority lists dated 23.12.1987 and 18.4.1992.
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9879 of 1990 dated 23.11.1992 on the basis of which Sh.
Later on, he was granted extension of another six months by order dated December 2, 1983.
The seniority list was required to be revised keeping in view the aforementioned directions of the High Court.
3323 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.11134 of 2006 Jaswant Singh Lamba Appellant Versus Haryana Agricultural University Ors.
b a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and respondents to grant benefit of ad hoc services towards fixation of the seniority of the petitioners and to refix their seniority after companynting their ad hoc service.
The question which arose for companysideration before the High Court in the said writ application was as to whether the respondent University was right in appointing them on an ad hoc basis although they were selected by a Select Committee companystituted in terms of the rules.
The said respondents, however, companytended that as they were appointed in terms of the recruitment rules against permanent vacancies, they had wrongly been appointed on an ad hoc basis on and from 11.11.1982.
Appellant companyld number be permitted to companytend in the review application that respondent Nos.4 and 5, in fact, had rightly been appointed on an ad hoc basis, as he was number a necessary party in the writ petition filed by the said respondents.
The legality of the seniority list dated 18.4.1992 was number in question therein.
Appellant was, thus, number a necessary party numberrelief having been claimed against him.
No relief therein was claimed as against the appellant.
By an order dated 13.5.1993, an office order was issued informing all companycerned including the Chief Engineer that the respondent No 5 would be treated to have been appointed on a regular basis w.e.f.
Publication of the seniority list was merely companysequential to the order of the High Court.
Appellant filed representations thereagainst, inter alia, on 29.5.2004 and 24.8.2004.
In a seniority list published on 23.12.1987, their seniority was shown from the date of their regular appointment.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Even otherwise, the order of the High Court appears to be known to the appellant herein.
Thus, only because a seniority list was again published in the year 2004 and the appellant filed representations thereagainst, the same by itself companyld number be a ground for unsettling a settled position.
Respondent University was directed to companysider their regular appointment with effect from 11.11.1982.
The said representations were rejected by an order dated 1.1.2005, stating It is intimated that your representation for fixing of seniority as Junior Engineer above Shri A.K. Agarwal, J.E. has been companysidered and rejected in the light of the decision of the Honble Pb.
4 and 5 companyld have preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, but they chose number to do so for a long time.
Their representation that they were entitled to be appointed with effect from 11.11.1982 on a regular basis was rejected.
11.11.1982.
Their services, however, were regularized on a later date.
Even otherwise, the application for review at the instance of the appellant was number maintainable.
4, in his companynter affidavit, categorically stated that the order of the High Court dated 23.11.1992 was brought to the knowledge of everybody including the appellants stating The said fact of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 having been accorded seniority over and above the petitioner was again brought to the knowledge of the petitioner and other officers when the said respondents were granted promotional scales vide order dated 27.01.1996 issued by the respondent No.1 herein.
It is difficult to believe that the departments where only 18 Sectional Officers were working including Civil and Electrical Engineering Department, the appellant would number have the knowledge thereabout.
In the seniority list published on 14.5.1993, N.S. Yadav, respondent No.4, was shown at serial number 12 A.K. Aggarwal, respondent No.5, was shown at serial number 13 and the appellant was shown at serial number 17.
Respondents JUDGMENT B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
A fresh seniority list was prepared pursuant to the said order.
It is also number in dispute that respondent No.4 was granted the promotional scale.
The order dated 23.11.1992 became final and binding as against the University.
The review application was filed thereafter in January 2005.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed in 1982.
Undisputedly, the petitioners were initially appointed after they had been selected by a Committee with effect from November 11, 1982 and they had been companytinuously working as such without any break till they were appointed on regular basis.
The University accepted the said judgment.
Appellant herein is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dismissing a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated on 23.11.1992.
The review of the said judgment was sought for by the appellant, inter alia, on the premise that the decision of the High Court, allowing a writ petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 resulted in loss of his seniority.
This also disposes of your all representations on the above subject.
Thus, the appellant companyld have grievance only against Respondent No.5, if any, who was appointed on temporary post later to the appellant and was also shown junior in the abovementioned list.
