Monday, 31 October 2011

Provisional Seniority List of Lecturers (School Cadre) as on 01.10.2011

Govt. of Haryana

School Education Department

Order

Whereas a tentative seniority list of School Lecturers was prepared as on

01.04.2005. Thereafter, in view of Hon'ble High Court directions in CWP No. 5575 of

2009 titled as Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, a tentative seniority list was

prepared as on 01.12.2009 on the following criteria: -



That those selected through HPSC or HSSC or Departmental Selection

Committees have been assigned seniority from the date of recommendations

made by these bodies.

That the inter-se merit of direct recruitees as fixed by the HPSC or HSSC or

Departmental Selection Committees has been kept as such.

That if there are more than one selection lists of direct recruitees on the same

date, the inter-se merit of candidates recommended on the same ranks in such

lists has been decided on the basis of age on the date of recommendation older

placed higher in seniority.


That the seniority of those lecturers who were initially appointed on adhoc basis

and were subsequently regularized has been fixed on the basis of their

regularization.

That if more than one Lecturer has been regularized on the same date, the date

of joining on adhoc basis has been kept in view for fixing their inter-se seniority.

That if more than one Lecturer as mentioned in para 5 above has joined on the

same date on adhoc basis, the Lecturer who is older in age has been placed

higher in seniority.

That in case of promotion from the categories of Masters or C&V Teachers, the


seniority has been fixed according to the date of order of promotion as Lecturer.

That if more than one person has been promoted on the same date, the inter-se

seniority among such persons has been fixed on the basis of date of joining as

regular on feeder cadre.

That if their date of joining as regular on feeder cadre as mentioned in para 8

happens to be the same, their date of joining on adhoc basis has been kept in

view for fixing their inter-se seniority.

That if their date of joining on adhoc basis as mentioned in para 9 above also

happens to be the same, the candidate who is older in age has been placed


higher in the seniority list.



That if more than one person has been recruited directly as Lecturer or promoted

as Lecturer or regularized as Lecturer on the same date, their order of placement

in seniority has been fixed as appointment by direct recruitment, appointment by

regularization and appointment by promotion.

That instructions issued by the Chief Secretary, Haryana vide letter No. 1524-

2GS-1-71/7240 dated 05.04.1971 & No. 401-2GS-173/2664 dated 08.02.1973 and


Haryana State Education Lecturer (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1998 have

been kept in view while finalizing this seniority list.

Thereafter, representations were received from Lecturers appointed at different

intervals and from different sources especially regarding the direct recruitment made in

the year 1991 by departmental selection committees and subsequent directions made

by Hon'ble Supreme Court. These selection lists of 1991 were prepared subject-wise,

•atennry-wise i.e. (General/Schedule Caste/Backward Class/Ex-serviceman/Physically

inter-se seniority even in one subject. To solve the intricacies involved, the following

principles were adopted to fix seniority of these 1991 selections: -


Firstly, Sr. No. 1 in the merit list of all the selected and appointed candidates of

all subjects, all categories including males and females shall be arranged in order

of age i.e. senior in age, senior in merit. Thereafter, Sr. No. 2 as enunciated

above and so on. This will be prepared separately each for general category,

scheduled caste, backward class, ex-serviceman and physically challenged

persons. Males and Females will be included in the relevant category according

to their age.

Thereafter, inter-se seniority list as per roster points mentioned in the letter no.

22/36/90-3GS-III dated 24 th January, 1991 will be prepared. The same will be as


under: -

For persons belonging to Scheduled Caste

4-8-14-18-24-28-34-38-42-50-54-58-64-68-74-78-84-88-92 and 100.

For persons belong to Backward Classes

10-16-22-32-46-56-70-76-86 and 96.

For Ex-servicemen

2-6-12-20-30-36-40-44-48-60-62-66-72-80-90-94 and 98.

For Physically Challenged persons

26-52 and 82.


After 100, the same will be repeated as enunciated above.

No reference to date of appointment can be considered as from the perusal of

the same, it has been observed that senior person has been appointed late and junior

earlier due to various reasons i.e. verification of documents and qualifications etc.

Thereafter, in view of above, a tentative seniority lists as on 01.12.2009 (amended)

issued on 09.05.2011 was prepared and circulated.

Now, about 90 objections have been received from the appointees of different

periods and about 40 persons coming present were heard in person on 23.08.2011.

After hearing, the objections/issues can be categorized as under: -


What principle is to be adopted for the selection made in 1991 by

departmental selection committee and subsequent directions made by

Hon'ble Supreme Court especially keeping in view the fact that the

appointment has been made since 1995 till 2005 from this selection list?

Whether those selected through HPSC or HSSC or Departmental Selection

Committee are to be assigned seniority from the date of recommendations

made by these bodies or by the date of appointment or by the length of

continuous service?

What is the effect of delayed appointment of direct selection, especially in a


situation that in between another selection list out of direct quota is available?

Whether any person has a right for being promoted against the existence of

vacancy of promotional quota?

How the seniority of promotees is to be determined and further, if the date of

promotion of various subjects is the same, then how inter-se seniority for

promotion to the post of Principal is to be determined?

In case appointment by direct recruitment and promotion is made on the

same date, then how the inter-se seniority for promotion to the post of

Principal of such lists shall be determined?


7. In case appointment by direct recruitment of various subjects is made on the

same date, then how the inter-se seniority for promotion to the post of

8. How the seniority of Lecturers initially appointed on adhoc/contract basis and

regularized

later on in accordance with Government policy is to be

determined?

After going through various objections and arguments put fo rth at the time of

personal hearing, provisions of Punjab Educational Service, Class Ill, School Cadre

Rules, 1955Haryana State Education Lecturer (School Cadre) Service Rules,


1998, variousa innds tHruacrt ions issued by Government from time to time, Apex Court/High

Court judgments and various parameters/principles fixed from time to time regarding

seniority of Lecturers, the issue-wise findings, especially in view of objections raised,

are as under: -

1. So far as the first issue is concerned, the criteria adopted as enunciated

above, is in conformity with the principle of service jurisprudence and natural

justice especially in view of the f

se i.e. (General/Schedule

act that the selection listsCasotfe /1B9a9c1k wwaerrde


prepared subject-wise, category-wi

Class/Ex-serviceman/Physically Challenged persons) and sex-wise i.e. Male

or Female, separately and there was no inter-se seniority even in one subject.

As the appointment from this list has been made since 1995 till 2005

especially

in view of the Supreme Court directions, in that eventualit y, the

date of appointment shall be the one on which the first appointme nt list from

this selection list was issued vide order No. 6-29-91    -IV(3) dated


jay

18.10.199 1. This disposes the objections raised by Sh. A    Kumar, Sh.

Rajinder Dahiya, Smt. Indra Wati, Sh. Nirmal Sihal, Sh. Sushil Kumar, Smt.

Chander Prabha and five/six other persons, Sh. Subhash Chander Kaushik,

Sh. Kuldeep Singh Hooda, Sh. Rajinder, Sh. Sham Sunder, Sh. Ashwani

Kumar, Sh. Balraj Sharma and Sh. Vijay. Seniority of Sh. Vijay be

e fixed

should


assigned seniority as a BC candidate and not as ESM.

2. So far as the second issue is concerned, instructions issued vide letter

No.16355-8GS-62/42251 dated 24.11.196 2 for determining seniority from

different

the

date of recommendation by the recruitin g body conveys

interpretations and has no relevance especially after the notification of the

relevant Service Rules. It has been held in CWP No. 20173 of 2006 decided

on 13.01.2009 titled as Suresh Kumar Mangal & others Vs. State of Haryana


& others cited in 2009(2) RSJ 476 that instructions cannot override the

statutory

rules. Both Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre

Rules, 1955 and Haryana State Education Lecturer (School Cadr

and e) Service

Rules, 1998 has prescribed date of appointment/confination    conti

service as the cardinal principle for determinin g the inter-s    seniority. This


disposes the objections raised by Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Sh.

e

Ajit Singh, Sh.

Anand Prakash, Sh. Mahabir Prasad, Sh. Virender, Sh. Subhash Chander,

Sh. Jaswant Singh, Sh. Surender Singh and Sh. Ajit Singh.

3. So far as the third issue is concerne, it has been clearly upheld by Supreme

Court judgment in Civil Appeal No

d

. 2098 of 2007, decided on 08.07.2008


titled as Balwant Singh Narwal & others Vs. State ofHaryana & others cites to d in

/2.   

2009(3) RSJ 683, 2008(7) SCC 728 and 2008(7) JT 540, that seniority i

t- be counted from the back date of selection over and above the selection

made subsequently i.e. candidate selected against earlier advertisement but

could not be appointed alongwith others from the same batch due to certain


technical difficulties and appointed subsequent ly after order in their favour

from the Apex Court, were entitled for seniority over an above the persons

who were appointed subsequent to their appointmentd against

C.,..thar it has been clearly upheld that the persons selected

against earlier vacancies will have to be placed above who were appointed

against subsequent vacancies.

So far as the fourth issue is concerned, there is not an iota of doubt that the

competent authority is well within its jurisdiction to determine the persons to

be promoted out of the quota available, keeping in view the immediate


necessity and other financial constraints of the Government and nobody can

claim it as a matter of right. This disposes of the objection raised by Smt.

Pomila, Lecturer and it has been admitted by her that no person junior to her

has been promoted on the date asked for i.e. 26.11.1991.

So far as fifth issue is concerned, from the perusal of Punjab Educational

Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955 and Haryana State Education

Lecturer (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1998, it is clear that seniority shall be

determined according to the seniority in the appointments from which persons

are being promoted. If the date of promotion of various subjects is the same,


in that eventuality, the date of appointment on regular basis in the feeder

cadre shall be the basis for determinin g inter-se seniority for further promotion

to the post of Principal. If the date of appointment in the feeder cadre is the

same, in that eventuality, Sr. No. 1 in the merit list of all the promoted

candidates of all subjects shall be arranged in order of age i.e. senior in age,

senior in merit. Thereafter, Sr. No. 2 as enunciated above and so on. This

disposes of the objection raised by Sh. Lalit Kumar, Sh. Dharmender Singh

and Sh. Shiv Kumar.

So far as sixth issue is concerned, from the perusal of Punjab Educational


Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 1955 and Haryana State Education

Lecturer (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1998, it is clear that if direct

recruitment and promotion is made on the same date, a member appointed

by direct recruitment shall be senior to a member appointed by promotion.

So far as seventh issue is concerned, firstly, Sr. No. 1 in the merit list of all

the appointed candidates of all subjects shall be arranged in order of age i.e.

senior in age, senior in merit. Thereafter, Sr. No. 2 as enunciated above and

8. So far as eighth issue is concerned, in such type of cases the seniority shall

so on.


be determined on the principle laid in the regularization policy itself issued by

the Government at the relevant time.

Note: Criteria fixed while issuing initially seniority list as on 01.12.2009 and criteria fixed

for 1991 appointees by departmental selection committee issued on 09.05.2011 shall be

deemed to have been amended in the light of above.

Seniority of Sh. Ved Pal promoted on 09.02.2006 w.e.f. 17.11.2000 in

compliance of Hon'ble High Court order be corrected. Similarly, seniority of Sh. Chander

Pal Singh promoted on 19.11.2003 w.e.f. 25.07.1992 be corrected. So far as objections

of Smt. Krishna Ahlawat, Sh. Raghubir Singh Saini, Sh. Sube Singh Yadav and Sh.


Ramphal Sehrawat are concerned, these have nothing to do with seniority but related to

antedated promotion. These alongwith other such cases be decided on priority basis

before issuance of final seniority list. Sh. Jagdish Yadav objection about existence of

name at two places be corrected. Representation of Sh. Daya Ram regarding change of

seniority, time and again, is not based on any concrete facts and hence, rejected being

devoid of merit.

TO SEE SENIORITY LIST CLICK BELOW


No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment