Service Law – Seniority – Dispute regarding private respondents kept senior from petitioners – Whether respondents 4 to 12 merely by virtue of appearance in examination before completion of 18 months training can be said to have completed the selection process in terms of Rule 15 of 2009 Rules?
Held: The respondents have not been able to place on record any material to justify the appearance of private respondents in examination in August 2015, when they had not yet completed the training. No such rule has been brought to the notice of the court under which the private respondents could be allowed to appear in examination before completion of training. Once, the private respondents were not eligible to appear in and qualify the Patwari examination for want of completion of requisite training period, their eligibility cannot be compared with that of the petitioners.
The petitioners and private respondents cannot be said to have achieved the requisite qualification at the same time. Said rule will come into play inter-se the candidates who had achieved the requisite qualification at the same time. Clearly, the petitioners had achieved such qualification prior in time than the private respondents and as such, they were entitled to be placed above the private respondents in seniority list. Petition allowed – Respondents are directed to recast and reframe the seniority list (Para 13, 16)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 105 HP
[2023:HHC:9475]
Vicky And Others Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
CWP No. 8433 of 2022-Decided on 21.08.2023.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-105-HP.pdf
