1996 INSC 0706
                                           State of Haryana and Others

                                                           Vs

                                             Balwant Singh and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 7787 of 1996

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      22.04.1996

                                                     JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana made on 14-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 3200 of 1995. The admitted position is
that on 8-8- 1971, the Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board advertised for selection of the
candidates for Family Welfare Extension Educators and Family Planning Welfare Educators in the
Health Department of the State of Haryana. On 7-6-1972, a list of 45 candidates was prepared on
the basis of merit secured by them in the selection. It would appear that ad hoc appointees
approached the High Court and filed WP No. 2122 of 1972 and obtained status quo on 13-6-1972,
The writ petition came to be disposed of on 20-11-1981. Thereafter, the letters of appointment were
given to the selected candidates and the candidates came to be appointed and joined duties on
various dates between 30-9- 1985 and 23-12-1986. The gradation of seniority was done in 1994.
The seniority of respondents has been determined with effect from their dates of actual joining in
1985-86. As said earlier, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared them to be seniors
on a par with those who were selected and to whom letters of appointment were offered in 1972.

5. The question, therefore, is: whether the respondents are entitled to seniority from 7-6-1972 as per
the gradation list prepared by the Selection Board? Normally, the seniority of the candidates who
are selected by direct recruitment would be determined with reference to the merit list prepared by
the Selection Board. But, unfortunately, in this case, they could not join the service due to the
pendency of the writ petition. The respondents themselves have to be blamed for the laches since
they did not take any action, namely, impleading themselves in the pending writ petition nor filed
any independent writ petition claiming for their appointment. After the dismissal of the writ
petition, letters of appointment came to be issued in 1985 and they joined the service. It is sealed
law that the seniority of the candidates has to be reckoned from the date on which they joined the
service and started discharging the duties of the post to which they came to be appointed. In that
view, since the respondents joined the service in 1985-86, seniority cannot be given with
retrospective effect from the date of the selection (sic of) the candidates appointed from the list of
merit prepared by the Selection Board.

6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.