De Hors Statutory Rules: High Court Directs Punjab Education Dept To Prepare Fresh Seniority List Of 50,000 Masters

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently found that the seniority list of Master cadre affecting more than 50,000 Masters/ Mistressess prepared by the Punjab Education Department in 2019 is de hors statutory rules.

It has directed the State government to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with the Rules framed in 1978, within six months. "Rules have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which are in the nature of statutory law...the statutory law is required to be given primacy," Single bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal said.

The bench was informed that the Department had treated all those Masters/Mistress who were recruited through recruitment notice published in the year 1994 as one batch and deemed their appointment with effect from 02.12.1996, whereas, all those Masters and Mistresses who were recruited through the recruitment notice in the year 1996 were taken as another batch, who are deemed to have been appointed with effect from 01.01.1997. Thereafter, the seniority was prepared after making a consolidated merit list of the candidates selected for various streams.

Justice Kshetarpal noted that a plain reading of the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 makes it clear that the competent authority is obligated to prepare the seniority list of Masters and Mistresses on the basis of continuous length of service. "Moreover, there is no provision for preparing a batch-wise seniority list."

Validity of the 1978 Rules was upheld by a division bench of the High Court back in 2010. The government argued that the Rules of 1994 hold the field. However, the single bench observed that a 2015 judgment of the High Court held that the 1994 Rules would have only a limited effect with respect to regulating recruitment and conditions of service for appointment to public service and posts held under the State. It added,

"The order also suffers from obvious errors. It is evident from a careful reading of the Rule 11 that the seniority is required to be counted on the basis of continuous length of service on a post in that cadre of the service subject to certain provisos. The proviso can be applied only when the recruitment is by the same selection process and a joint merit list has been prepared which in the present case, was not prepared by the select committee. There is no clarity as to why the Director has prepared a joint seniority list..."

Case Title: Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab