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
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