Waiting-List Clerk’s Bid For Seniority Over Earlier-Appointed, Higher-Ranked Main-List Recruits Rejected: P&H HC

The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2008 after being recommended from the waiting list; he joined the PWD B&R Department on 26 April 2013.

The private respondents had been recommended and joined in February 2012.

The petitioner sought re-fixation of his seniority, asserting that it should reflect his merit in the original recruitment process.

The respondents rejected his representations, maintaining that waiting-list candidates could not be merged with candidates appointed from the main list.

The petitioner challenged those communications and the seniority list, seeking seniority over private respondents Nos. 6–10 and consequential service benefits.

The Court noted that the seniority list had been finalised on 1 January 2024, objections had been invited, and the petitioner had not objected to it.

Rule 11 of the Haryana Public Works Department (B&R Branch) Headquarters Office Ministerial Service (Group C) Rules, 1979 provides that inter se seniority is generally determined by length of continuous service; where the service has different cadres, seniority is determined separately for each cadre; and, for direct recruits, the order of merit determined by the Board is not to be disturbed in fixing seniority.

The Rule also prescribes priority in specified cases involving members appointed on the same date.

The Court further accepted that candidates appointed from a waiting list cannot be equated with candidates appointed directly from the select/merit list, since waiting-list appointment depends on a vacancy arising and on the date of recommendation.

No judicial precedents were relied upon.

The Court found that the petitioner joined after the private respondents and that the parties belonged to the same cadre.

It also recorded that the petitioner’s counsel accepted that the private respondents ranked higher in the HSSC merit list; accordingly, the petitioner’s claim to seniority over them was unsupported by Rule 11’s merit proviso.

The Court further held that the petitioner could not establish a basis for merging waiting-list candidates with main-list candidates.

His claim was also weakened by his failure to challenge his seniority until 2020 and his failure to object to the seniority list when objections were invited in 2024.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.