Roster Points Cannot Rewrite Merit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Seniority Lists of Assistant Engineers
Case Name: Fatehpal Singh and Others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 February 2026
Citation: CWP-3733-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in cases of direct recruitment, seniority must be determined strictly on the basis of merit secured in the selection process and cannot be altered by applying roster points. The Court held that Regulations 9 and 16 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965 mandate merit-based seniority and that reservation roster cannot determine inter se seniority.
Summary: The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in 1999 pursuant to Advertisement CRA No.210/1998, challenged the seniority lists dated 11.03.2004 and subsequent seniority lists in higher cadres including Assistant Executive Engineer and Senior Executive Engineer. They also assailed rejection orders dated 28.03.2024 and 08.11.2024 whereby their claim for correction of seniority was declined.
The core grievance of the petitioners was that despite the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab (1989) and Government instructions issued in 1996, 1999 and 2000 adopting merit-based seniority for direct recruits, the respondent-Corporation applied roster points while finalizing the seniority list. This resulted in reserved category candidates junior in merit being placed above the petitioners.
The petitioners relied upon Regulations 9 and 16 of the 1965 Regulations, contending that a conjoint reading thereof clearly establishes that seniority of Assistant Engineers appointed through direct recruitment must be determined strictly on the basis of merit in the selection list and cannot be disturbed thereafter.
The Corporation opposed the petition on the ground of delay and acquiescence, submitting that the tentative seniority list was circulated in 2003, finalized on 11.03.2004, and promotions were granted thereafter. It was argued that the petitioners did not object at the relevant time and approached the Court belatedly.
The High Court examined the statutory regulations and Government instructions and reiterated that roster points are meant only to ensure implementation of reservation policy and cannot govern inter se seniority among direct recruits. It held that once seniority is required to be fixed on merit, deviation therefrom by applying roster points is contrary to settled law.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned seniority lists and consequential rejection orders were set aside. The respondent-Corporation was directed to refix seniority of the petitioners strictly on the basis of merit in accordance with the applicable Regulations and law laid down by the Supreme Court, with all consequential benefits.