AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti are impleaded as parties in I.A. No. 3 as per order dated 18.05.2006.
2. The appellant - Arvinder Singh Bains filed the above appeal against the final judgment and order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1705/2000 whereby the High Court has dismissed the LPA filed by him.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1976
3. State Government issued an advertisement in the year 1976 for 10 vacancies in the cadre of PCS Officers. The 1976- Rules were enforced w.e.f. 02.12.1976. As per the case of the State Government itself requisition for 10 posts meant for direct recruits (Register-B) were sent to Punjab Public Service Commission.
ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1980:
4. State Government issued an advertisement in the year 1980 for direct recruitment to the PCS. With respect to the said advertisement, State Government had issued a corrigendum, inter alia, relaxing the age of recruitment to PCS. With regard to the 1980 advertisement, competitive examinations were held for direct recruitment. Selection was to be made by the Punjab Public Service Commission.
A list of candidates selected by the Commission by way of direct recruitment was notified. This included the name of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 Dipinder Singh. Promotees from other Registers (other than Register-B) were appointed as PCS in 1984-85. The appellant had applied pursuant to the above-mentioned advertisement of 1980-82. The appellant and others were selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission joined as PCS Officers on the basis of competitive examination. It is to be noticed that these vacancies had occurred in the interregnum 1978 to 1982. These vacancies were filled up only in the year 1986. According to the appellant, had these vacancies been filled up timely, direct recruits coming in through Register-B would have found higher places in the impugned seniority list.
5. During the interregnum 1978 to 1986 appointment to the service took place from other Registers. In the meantime, the promotee candidates were brought in as PCS officers. According to the appellant, delay on the part of the Government to appoint direct candidates could not result in appellant losing seniority to these promotee candidates. On 24.08.1988, tentative seniority list of candidates who had been selected and appointed by direct recruitment (via Register-B) was prepared and circulated. The appellant represented against the above tentative seniority list and submitted that Rule 21 has to be read with Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules and thereby seniority is governed by the order of vacancies mentioned in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. On 01.07.1994, a final seniority list of Register-B candidates was prepared without assigning their places in the consolidated seniority of the cadre. The final seniority list of Register-B candidates was also circulated.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT:
6. The appellant and respondent No. 3 - Dipinder Singh filed writ petition No. 16516 of 1995 before the High Court.
SUBMISSION IN THE WRIT PETITION:
7. The appellant contended that Rule 21 which governs seniority refers to Rule 18 and Rule 18 provided for the filling up of the slab of 100 vacancies. Rule 21 reads thus:
21. Seniority of the members of the Service.- The seniority of officers appointed to the Service shall be determined in accordance with the order of their appointment to the Service; provided that -
(a) if the order of appointment of any candidate is cancelled under the provisions of Rule 20 and such candidate is subsequently appointed to the Service, the order of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be determined by the date of such subsequent appointment;
(b) if any officer appointed to the Service fails to qualify himself for substantive permanent appointment within the prescribed period of probation, the Government may determine whether the date of his appointment for purpose of this rule shall be postponed by a period not exceeding the period by which such officer's substantive permanent appointment is delayed beyond the prescribed period of probation;
(c) the persons appointed as a result of earlier selection from a Register shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection from the same Register.
8. It was submitted that seniority list be governed by order of their appointment and order of their appointment was provided for in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. It was thus contended that seniority would be governed by the serial number of the vacancy and not the date of appointment. Rule 18 reads as follows:
18. Appointment of accepted candidates to the service. The Government shall make appointments to the Service in pursuance of Rule 7 from amongst the candidates entered on the various Registers in a slab of 100 vacancies as follows:
(i) the first vacancy and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall be filled from amongst candidates borne on Register'B'.
(ii) the 2nd, 8th, 14th, 20th, 26th, 32nd, 38th, 44th, 50th, 56th, 62nd, 68th, 74th, 80th, 86th, 92nd, 96th and 100th vacancy shall be filled from amongst the candidates borne on Register A-I;
(iii) the 4th, 10th, 16th, 22nd, 28th, 34th, 40th, 46th, 52nd, 58th, 64th, 70th, 76th, 82nd, 88th and 98th vacancy shall be filled from amongst candidates borne on Register A-II.
(iv) The 12th, 30th, 42nd, 54th, 66th, 78th and 90th vacancy shall be filled from amongst the Excise and Taxation Officers accepted as candidates on Register A-III;
(v) The 18th, 36th, 60th and 84th vacancy shall be filled from amongst the District Development and Panchayat Officers or Block Development and Panchayat Officers accepted as candidates on Register A-III; and
(vi) The 6th, 24th, 48th, 72nd and 94th vacancy shall be filled from amongst the candidates on Register 'C':
The State Government and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement to the above statement.
STAND OF THE STATE:
9. A perusal of Rule 18 makes it abundantly clear that the rotation system provided in this rule is in fact meant for recruitment to the Service from various sources and to ensure prescribed representation of candidates drawn from various sources. The words 'vacancy' and 'filled' occurring in this rule are important and therefore, worth noticing. A perusal of various rules of the 1976 Rules reveals that these rules do not, implicitly or explicitly, permit application of rota system provided in Rule 18 thereof, for the purpose of determining seniority which is governed by Rule 21 alone. If seniority of the members of service is determined in accordance with Rule 18, Rule 20 and 21 will become redundant. It was submitted that Rule 20 of 1976-Rules had operated in a completely different filed and that Rule 20 of the 1976- Rules was concerned with the case of a candidate whose appointment had been cancelled and so subsequently appointed. It is only in such an eventuality that the date of such subsequent appointment has been made relevant. It was also contended that Rules 18 specifically refers to appointment to Service and Rule 21 cannot be interpreted by ignoring Rule 7 and Rule 18.
10. In another written statement filed before the High Court with regard to the other Registers, the date of such appointments were 19.11.1994 and 20.11.1994. These were appointments from 2 different Registers made on given as 19.11.1994 and 20.11.1994. To explain the seniority positions allocated to these candidates, it was stated that:
Therefore, it is clear that even for this appointment, seniority has been determined as per Rule 21. Interjection was only a via-media adopted by the State Government in view of the fact that the rules are totally silent as to what would happen if persons from two registers are issued orders of appointment on the same date.
Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti who were respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the writ petition and now respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in this appeal filed written statement before the High Court. They contended that the appellants and their batch mates will have to remain junior to respondent Nos. 6 & 7, they having been appointed 2 years after the appointment of the answering respondents and, therefore, they would remain junior to them for the purpose of seniority and selection/promotion to the post of IAS cadre.