Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Seniority Claim of Mandi Supervisors Appointed in 2015; Holds Seniority Governed by Length of Continuous Service Under 2008 Rules
Case Name: Sanjay Kumar Sharma and Others v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another
Date of Judgment: 09 February 2026
Citation: CWP-3525-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that seniority of Mandi Supervisors is governed by Rule 13 of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 2008, which mandates determination of seniority on the basis of length of continuous service. The Court held that candidates appointed in 2015 pursuant to court directions cannot claim parity or seniority over candidates appointed in 2008 or 2012 under earlier advertisements.
Summary: The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the order dated 04.10.2024 and the Final Gradation List dated 24.06.2023, whereby the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 316 to 325 in the cadre of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector. The petitioners sought parity in seniority and salary with candidates selected under Advertisement No.14/2007, contending that they too were selected under the same advertisement.
The petitioners had initially appeared in the written examination held on 31.05.2008 pursuant to Advertisement No.14/2007. Subsequent litigation led to a Division Bench direction in LPA-793-2012 for conducting a fresh written test and interview. Pursuant thereto, a fresh examination was held on 20.10.2015, and the petitioners were appointed as Mandi Supervisors in December 2015 and January 2016.
The respondent-Board contended that 63 candidates were appointed on 15.09.2008 against Advertisement No.14/2007 and 21 additional candidates were appointed in 2012 against Advertisement No.1/2009. The petitioners were appointed only in 2015 against vacancies that arose later and were therefore not borne in the cadre in 2008. It was further submitted that seniority is governed strictly by Rule 13 of the 2008 Rules.
The Court examined the recruitment chronology and noted that the requisition for 65 posts under Advertisement No.14/2007 led to appointment of 63 candidates in 2008, while 21 more candidates were appointed in 2012 under Advertisement No.1/2009. The petitioners were appointed only in 2015 pursuant to the Division Bench directions and were not part of the original 2008 appointments.
Relying upon Rule 13 of the 2008 Rules, the Court held that seniority inter se is to be determined by the length of continuous service. Since the petitioners joined service in 2015, they could not claim seniority over those who had entered service in 2008 or 2012. The Court rejected the contention that mere participation in the same advertisement entitles them to parity in seniority.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Final Gradation List dated 24.06.2023 and the impugned order dated 04.10.2024, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to be placed above candidates appointed earlier in accordance with the 2008 Rules.