We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order dated 18th
April, 2006 in Civil Writ Petition No.14465 of 2004 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the Division
Bench has allowed the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 3 herein and
quashed the order dated 14th July, 2004 (Annexure P-1) whereby the appellant
herein Raj Karan was shown above Pardaman Singh (R-3) in the seniority list of
Vaidyas.
The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that
Pardaman Singh (R-3 herein) filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14th
July, 2004 by which he was granted seniority above Raj Karan Singh (appellant
herein) in the cadre of Vaidyas. The
Government issued a Notification that both these candidates are selected for the
post of Vaidyas in 1987. As per the recommendation of the selection committee
dated 4th June, 1987 Pardaman Singh (R-3) was placed at No.9 and Raj Karan
Singh, the Appellant before us, was placed at S.No.10. But because of the
Government's Instructions dated 5.5.1975 with regard to appointment of the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to the effect that out of 50% of the post of
scheduled castes shall be reserved for Mazhbi Sikhs/Balmikis and in that Raj
Karan Singh who belong to Balmiki was given appointment against the post of
scheduled caste. Pardaman Singh was given the next post. Raj Karan Singh
made a representation against Pardaman Singh for assignment of higher seniority
and claimed seniority against Pardaman Singh on the ground that he has been
appointed against the first vacancy of scheduled caste Mazhbi Sikhs/Balmikis and
therefore, he should be given seniority over Pardaman Singh. This representation
was acceded by the Government and seniority was changed and Raj Karan Singh
was given seniority above Pardaman Singh in the cadre of scheduled caste.
Pardaman Singh filed a writ petition and in that writ petition the Division Bench
of the High Court allowed the writ petition
and held that as per the selection committee's recommendation, Pardaman Singh
has been placed at S.No.9 in merit and Raj Karan Singh has been placed at
S.No.10 in the merit list. Therefore, the Division Bench held that Pardaman
Singh who has placed higher in merit by selection committee, should be given
seniority above Raj Karan Singh notwithstanding that Raj Karan Singh has been
appointed on the first scheduled caste vacancy. The view taken by the Division
Bench appears to be just and proper. The incumbent can be appointed against
first vacancy but in the same selection if names are arranged according to merit
then person higher in merit can not be lowered down in seniority. The view
taken by the High Court, in our opinion, appears to be just and proper.
Therefore, we do not think it proper to interfere in this appeal. The same is
accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
New Delhi, July 16, 2008