Ram Prasad vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
113
Ram Prasad
State of Ha
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. S
for th
Mr. S
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-35089
Date of De
9-2026 (O&M)
ecision:- 28.10.2026
d
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Sandeep Panwar, Advocate
he petitioner.
Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition under Art
ticles 226 of the Constitution of
f
India has been fi
led by the petitioner for issuan
ce of a writ, order or direction,
,
especially a writ
in the nature of certiorari for q
uashing Letter no. 169489/ES-II
dated 11.12.2025
5 (Annexure P-22) and the re
ply to the Legal Notice dated
d
07.08.2026 (Anne
exure P-27), whereby the legitim
mate claim/representation of the
e
petitioner seeki
ng re-fixation of his senior
rity in accordance with his
s
merit/performan
ce in the main recruitment p
process conducted pursuant to
o
Advertisement N
No. 1/2008, Category No. 1 (C
lerks), has been rejected; and
d
further for quash
hing Letter No. dated 14.11.202
25 issued by respondent No. 6
6
(Annexure P-19),
to the extent it does not furnish
h/record of the combined merit
t
position of the
candidates on the basis of
marks obtained in the main
n
recruitment proc
cess and treats the selected
and waiting-list candidates as
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
separate categori
6 (O&M) - 2 -
ies, quashing the impugned sen
niority list of assistants supplied
d
vide RTI reply dat
ted 07.04.2026 (AnnexureP-23)
to the extent the petitioner has
s
been placed belo
ow private respondents Nos. 6
6 to 10, despite the petitioner
r
having secured h
igher merit/marks in the main
recruitment process conducted
d
pursuant to the
said advertisement, and the
e consequential action of the
e
respondents in d
etermining the inter-se seniorit
ty of the petitioner vis-a-vis the
e
said private respo
ondents otherwise than in acco
rdance with their relative merit
t
in the original re
ecruitment process; and furthe
er for issuance of a writ in the
e
nature of manda
mus directing the respondents
to re-determine and re-fix the
e
inter-se seniority
y of the petitioner vis-a-vis pr
rivate respondents No.6 to 10
0
strictly in accorda
ance with the petitioner's relati
ve merit/marks obtained in the
e
main recruitmen
t process conducted pursuant
to Advertisement No. 1/2008,
,
Category No. 1
(Clerks), after obtaining/recon
nstructing the combined merit
t
position of all the
e candidates who participated
in the said recruitment process
s
from the Haryan
na Staff Selection Commission
n (respondent No. 4), and to
o
thereafter re-fix t
the seniority of the petitioner i
n accordance with law, with all
l
consequential se
rvice benefits, including seniori
ty, consideration for promotion
n
from the date
his immediate juniors were c
considered/granted promotion,
,
consequential pa
ay fixation and consequential
monetary benefits, as may be
e
found due in acco
ordance with law.
2. It is
inter alia submitted by ld. c
ounsel for the petitioner that
t
against Advertise
ement No. 1/2008 issued by th
he respondents, petitioner had
d
applied for appoi
ntment to post of Clerk/Catego
ry No. 1 and participated in the
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
selection process
6 (O&M) - 3 -
s. Result for 3298 posts of Clerk
against the said Advertisement
t
was declared by
y the respondent No. 4/Haryan
na Staff Selection Commission
n
(hereinafter refer
rred to as 'HSSC') on 30.01.2012
2. Vide order dated 10.02.2012
2
(Annexure P-1), H
HSSC had recommended 13 cand
didates for appointment to post
t
of Clerk. It was
further mentioned by the HS
SSC that Waiting List shall be
e
maintained and in
n the event of non-joining of any
y recommended candidates, the
e
next candidate w
ould be requisitioned for appoin
ntment.
3. Ld. c
counsel submits that vide letter
dated 21.08.2012 (Annexure P-
-
2), the Registrar,
for Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Ha
aryana, had requested HSSC to
o
recommend cand
didates against vacancies caus
sed due to non-joining of one
e
Pankaj Kumar an
nd Banwari Lal. Consequentially
y, vide letter dated 29.01.2013
3
(Annexure P-3), n
name of the petitioner was reco
ommended for appointment as
s
Clerk against the
e vacancy. Pursuant thereto, pe
etitioner had joined PWD B&R
R
Department on 2
6.04.2013.
4. Ld. c
counsel submits that the Departm
ment of Personnel and Training,
,
Government of
India has issued an Office M
emorandum dated 08.08.2013
3
(Annexure P-8), a
s per which inter se seniority of
candidates recommended from
m
Main/Reserve lis
st was to be maintained o
n the basis of marks/merit.
.
Consequentially,
petitioner had submitted a re
presentation dated 12.05.2020
0
(Annexure P-9) fo
or fixation of his seniority as per
r the recommendation received
d
from the HSSC.
Vide communication dated 12
2.06.2020 (Annexure P-10), the
e
Department had
informed the petitioner that his
s seniority had been rightly fixed
d
from date of issua
ance of recommendation by the
HSSC.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
5. Petit
6 (O&M) - 4 -
tioner had again submitted a re
epresentation dated 10.06.2025
5
(Annexure P-11)
seeking fixation of his seniori
ty. The same was followed by
y
another represen
ntation dated 27.06.2025 (Annex
xure P-12).
6. Vide
letter dated 22.07.2025 (Anne
exure P-13), the Registrar, PWD
D
had requested th
he Secretary, HSSC to supply exa
act seniority/merit list of Clerks.
.
Vide letter dated
d 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-14)
), HSSC had informed that 12
2
candidates had b
een recommended, out of whic
h 10 had joined. Accordingly, as
s
2 candidates ha
d not joined, two candidates
s from the Waiting List were
e
recommended. It
t was further informed that Main
n List and Waiting List could not
t
be merged and th
hat seniority is to be fixed by th
e Department as per its Service
e
Rules.
7. Acco
ordingly, vide Communication d
dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-
-
17), petitioner wa
as informed by the Department
intimating that seniority of the
e
petitioner had be
een fixed correctly from date of i
ssue of recommendation by the
e
HSSC on dated
29.01.2013 as per Rule 11
of the Haryana Public Works
s
Department (B&
R Branch) Headquarters Office
e Ministerial Service (Group C)
)
Rules, 1979 (Anne
exure P-7) (hereinafter referred
to as "the 1979 Rules").
8. Ther
reafter, HSSC issued another lett
ter dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure
e
P-19) reiterating
its stand regarding distinction b
between Main List and Waiting
g
List. Further, mer
it position of the petitioner was
reflected at 58.98 marks.
9. Ld. c
counsel for the petitioner subm
its that petitioner is entitled to
o
seniority ove
r and above the
11 persons previously
y
recommended/ap
ppointed/the private responde
ents here in; as petitioner has
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
secured more ma
6 (O&M) - 5 -
arks than the said persons. It is s
submitted that it is not disputed
d
that inter se senio
ority of direct recruits is to be de
etermined solely on the basis of
f
merit and not on
n the date of issuance of recom
mmendation/appointment letter.
.
As such, in view
of the admitted/conceded posi
tion that petitioner is higher in
n
merit, petitioner
is entitled to be senior to the pr
rivate respondents herein.
10. Ld. c
counsel for the petitioner furthe
er refers to Rule 11 of the 1979
9
Rules to submit t
hat it is categorically stipulated
therein that inter se seniority is
s
to be determined
d on merit.
11. It is
accordingly prayed that the pr
resent writ petition be allowed
d
and that “ a writ
t in the nature of Certiorari be
e issued for quashing letter no.
169489/ES-II date
ed 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-22) a
and the reply to the legal notice
e
dated 07.08.2026
6 (Annexure P-27), whereby the
legitimate claim/representation
n
of the petitioner
r seeking re-fixation of his sen
niority in accordance with his
s
merit/performanc
ce in the main recruitment p
process conducted pursuant to
o
Advertisement No
o.1/2008, category no. 1 (clerks)
), has been rejected; and further
r
for quashing lette
er no. dated 14.11.2025 issued
by respondent no. 6 (Annexure
e
P-19), to the exte
nt it does not furnish/record the
e combined merit position of the
e
candidates on the
e basis of marks obtained in the
e main recruitment process and
d
treats the select
ted and waiting-list candidates
s as separate categories, and
d
further for quash
hing the impugned seniority list
t of assistants supplied vide RTI
I
reply dated 07.04
4.2026 (Annexure P-23) to the
extent the petitioner has been
n
placed below pri
ivate respondents no. 6 to 10,
, despite the petitioner having
g
secured higher m
erit/marks in the main recruitm
ent process conducted pursuant
t
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
to the said adver
6 (O&M) - 6 -
rtisement, and the consequenti
ial action of the respondents in
n
determining the
inter-se seniority of the petiti
ioner vis-à-vis the said private
e
respondents othe
erwise than in accordance wi
ith their relative merit in the
e
original recruitme
ent process; and a writ in the na
ture of Mandamus be issued for
r
directing the resp
pondents to re-determine and re
e-fix the inter-se seniority of the
e
petitioner vis-à-vi
is private respondents no. 6 to 1
0 strictly in accordance with the
e
petitioner's relat
tive merit/marks obtained in
the main recruitment process
s
conducted pursua
ant to advertisement no. 1/2008
8, Category No. 1 (Clerks), after
r
obtaining/reconst
tructing the combined merit pos
sition of all the candidates who
o
participated in th
he said recruitment process fro
om the Haryana Staff Selection
n
Commission (Res
spondent no. 4), and to therea
after re-fix the seniority of the
e
petitioner in acc
cordance with law, with all c
consequential service benefits,
including seniorit
ty, consideration for promotion
n from the date his immediate
e
juniors were con
nsidered/granted promotion, c
consequential pay fixation and
d
consequential mo
onetary benefits, as may be foun
nd due in accordance with law.”
12. Per
contra , ld. State counsel appe
earing on advance notice has
s
vehemently oppo
osed submissions of the petition
ner and has contended that the
e
impugned order i
s a speaking order giving valid re
easons for rejecting claim of the
e
petitioner. Moreo
over, petitioner had joined in th
e year 2013 and had submitted
his first represen
ntation only seven years there
after in the year 2020, during
g
which time peti
tioner had never challenged
his seniority. It is accordingly
y
submitted that t
he present writ petition is bere
eft of merit and is liable to be
e
dismissed.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
13. No o
6 (O&M) - 7 -
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find no m
merit in the submissions advance
ed on behalf of the petitioner.
14. Inter
r se seniority of the members o
of the service is determined as
s
per Rule 11 of the
e 1979 Rules, which reads as foll
lows: -
“11.Seniority, inter se of me
embers of the Service shall be
e
determined by the length of co
ontinuous service on any post in
n
the Service :
Provided that where there are
e different cadres in the Service,
the seniority shall be determi
ined separately for each cadre :
:
Provided further that in the c
case of members appointed by
y
direct recruitment, the orde
er of merit determined by the
e
Board, shall not be disturbed i
in fixing the seniority :
Provided further that in the
case of two or more members
s
appointed on the same d
date, their seniority shall be
e
determined as follows :—
(a) a member appointe
d by direct recruitment shall be
e
senior to a member
r appointed by promotion or by
y
transfer ;
(b) a member appointe
ed by promotion shall be senior
r
to a member appoin
nted by transfer ;
(c) in the case of memb
bers appointed by promotion or
r
by transfer, seniority
y shall be determined according
g
to the seniority
of such members in the
e
appointments from
which they were promoted or
r
transferred ; and
(d) in the case of memb
bers appointed by transfer from
m
different cadres, the
eir seniority shall be determined
d
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
6 (O&M) - 8 -
according to pay,
preference being given to a
a
member who was d
drawing a higher rate of pay in
n
his previous appoin
ntment and if the rates of pay
y
drawn are also the s
same, then by the length of their
r
service in the appo
ointments and if the length of
f
such service is also
o the same, the older member
r
shall be senior to the
e younger member.”
15. A ba
are reading of the above shows
that the first stipulation of the
e
provision is that s
seniority inter se would be dete
rmined by continuous length of
f
service on any po
ost. On a court query, ld. counsel
l for the petitioner has admitted
d
that petitioner w
was appointed after the privat
te respondents; as admittedly,
,
petitioner had jo
oined on 26.04.2013, whereas t
the private respondents herein
n
were recommend
ded and had joined on dated
10.02.2012. Thus, petitioner is
s
junior to the priva
ate respondents herein.
16. The
Rule further stipulates that in ca
ase of different cadres, seniority
y
is to be determi
ined separately for each cadre
e. Again, on a Court query, ld.
.
counsel for the
petitioner has admitted tha
at petitioner and the private
e
respondents are b
borne on the same cadre.
17. The
second proviso to the Rule fu
rther stipulates that in case of
f
direct recruitmen
nt, seniority is to be determin
ned as per the order of merit
t
determined by th
he Board. On a Court query, ld.
. counsel for the petitioner has
s
also admitted th
hat the private respondents
were higher in merit to the
e
petitioner in the
Merit List as determined by th
e HSSC/Board. Consequentially,
,
the sole ground
on which petitioner is seeking
g seniority over and above the
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-35089-2026
private responden
6 (O&M) - 9 -
nts, which is on the ground that
he has secured higher marks, is
s
misconceived, mi
splaced, and not maintainable.
18. Claim
m of the petitioner is even o
therwise, not maintainable as
s
admittedly petitio
oner had joined on 26.04.2013
3, and had never challenged or
r
objected to his
seniority up to 11.05.2020 wh
hen he had submitted his first
t
representation fo
or fixation of seniority only on da
ated 12.05.2020 (Annexure P-9).
19. Furth
hermore, petitioner is unable t
to controvert the stand of the
e
HSSC that senio
rity of Waiting List candidates
s cannot be merged with the
e
seniority of the M
Main List candidates. It is not d
disputed that the Waiting List is
s
influenced by the
e date of recommendation, and
d a candidate from the Waiting
g
List is only liable
to be appointed when a vacanc
cy arises. Thus, candidates who
o
are borne on the
e Waiting List cannot be equated
d with those who are borne on
n
the Select/Merit
List and directly appointed there
efrom.
20. Even
n further, the record reveals t
hat seniority was finalized on
n
01.01.2024. Obje
ections to the said seniority lis
st were invited on 27.02.2024.
Admittedly, petiti
ioner did not submit any objecti
on to the said seniority list.
21. In vie
ew of the aforesaid facts, there
e is no merit in the present writ
t
petition and same
e is accordingly dismissed .
22. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.
28.10.2026
Neelam
( N
NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
Wheth
Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document