http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALWANT SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   633        1996 SCALE  (4)448

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Division  Bench of  the High  Court of  Punjab & Haryana made on  July 14,  1995 in  writ  petition  No.3200/95.  The admitted position  is that  on August  8, 1971,  the Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board advertised for selection of the candidates for Family Welfare Extension Educators and Family Planning  Welfare Educators  in the Health Department of the  State of  Haryana. On  June 7,  1972, a  list of  45 candidates was  prepared on  the basis  of merit  secured by them  in   the  selection.  It  would  appear  that  ad  hoc appointees  approached   the  High   Court  and  filed  W.P. No.2122/72 and  obtained status  quo on  June 13,  1972. The writ petition  came to  be disposed of on November 20, 1981. Thereafter, the  letters of  appointment were  given to  the selected candidates  and the candidates came to be appointed and joined  duties on  various dates  between September  30, 1985 and  December 23,  1586. The gradation of seniority was done  in   1994.  The  seniority  of  respondents  has  been determined with effect from their dates of actual joining in 1985-86. As  said earlier,  the High  Court allowed the writ petition and  declared them  to be seniors on par with those who were  selected and  whom  letters  of  appointment  were offered in 1972.      The question,  therefore, is:  whether the  respondents are entitled  to seniority  from 7th  June, 1972  as per the gradation list  prepared by  the Selection  Board? Normally, the seniority  of the  candidates who  are selected  by  the direct recruitment would be determined with reference to the merit  list   prepared  by   the   Selection   Board.   But, unfortunately, in this case, they could not join the service due to  the pendency  of the  writ petition. The respondents themselves have  to be  blamed for the laches since they did

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

not take  any action,  namely, impleading  themselves in the pending  writ   petition  nor  filed  any  independent  writ petition claiming for their appointment. After the dismissal of the  writ petition,  letters of  appointment came  to  be issued in  1985 and  they joined  the service. It is settled law that  the seniority of the candidates has to be reckoned from the  date on  which they joined the service and started discharging the  duties of the post to which they came to be appointed. In  that view,  since the  respondents joined the service  in   1985-86,  seniority   cannot  be   given  with retrospective effect  from the  date of the selection to the candidates appointed  from the list of merit prepared by the Selection Board.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.