TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the writ petition of the appellant relating to his seniority. The appellant was appointed an Assistant Engineer-II with effect from June 10, 1963 in the Punjab State Electricity Board on probation for two years which ended on June 10, 1965. After the bifurcation of the Punjab State Electricity Board, the service of the appellant was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. As a result of a disciplinary proceeding held against the appellant, on April 15, 1968. a minor penalty for the stoppage of one increment without any future effect was imposed on the appellant by the Board. After the expiry of one year, the appellant was, however, given the increment. Although the probat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointed on June 21, 1963, but his name was placed below that of Ved Prakash Lalit (Serial No. 62), who was appointed on April 7, 1964. In other words, the names of the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to 19, who are all juniors to the appellant, were placed above the name of the appellant in the seniority list without any reason whatsoever. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Board dated March 30, 1970 and also the seniority list wherein the appellant's name has been placed below the names of his juniors, namely, respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to 19, the appellant filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court. As stated already, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and the letters paten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iors of the appellant above him in the seniority list and/or confirming the appellant in the post with effect from December 1, 1969, that is, long after the date of confirmation of the said respondents Nos. 2 to 19. The question of seniority has nothing to do with the penalty that was imposed upon the appellant. It is apparent that for the same act of misconduct, the appellant has been punished twice, that is, first, by the stoppage of one increment for one year and, second, by placing him below his juniors in the seniority list. The appellant should have been confirmed on June 10, 1965 on which date he had completed two years of his probationary period. As has been stated already, the probationary period was not extended. The Board has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons that officiating Deputy Engineers were not confirmed even though substantive vacancies were available in which they could have been confirmed. It shows that confirmation does not have to conform to any set rules and whether an employee should be confirmed or not depends on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government. In the instant case, although the Board found that the appellant had satisfactorily completed his period of probation, yet he was placed below his juniors in the seniority list without any rhyme or reason. There is no explanation why the confirmation of the appellant was deferred till December 1, 1969. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the Board that after some substantive posts had fallen vacant on April 1, 1969, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
