C.W.P. No.7817 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7817 of 1989 Date of Decision.25.03.2010 Onkar Nath and others ......Petitioners Versus Punjab Housing Development Board, SCO 63-64, Sector 17-C, Chadigarh through its Chairman and others ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is filed to quash the seniority list attached in Annexure P-2 and the orders of promotion issued to the private respondents pursuant to such seniority list. The case relates institution of a claim in the year 1989 and there is no representation for the petitioners to indicate the present position and whether the reliefs sought for in the writ petition still have any relevance. 2. Notice to the petitioners have also been served through Court but none has appeared. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners have made the claim to seniority on the basis of the entry into service on ad hoc basis and the petitioners' claim is that such initial entry ought to have been the governing consideration for fixing of the C.W.P. No.7817 of 1989 -2- seniority. The Punjab Housing Development Board has filed a written statement and making reference to Section 15(2) of the Punjab Housing Development Board Act of 1973, it is urged that the recruitment conditions of service shall be regulated by the Board in accordance with the Regulations by the Board with prior approval of the State Government. Till such Regulations are framed, the section itself provides that the Punjab Civil Service Rules shall apply. It has been contended in the written statement that the conditions of service are governed by Punjab Civil Service Rules since no Regulations have been framed. The ad hoc service will only count towards the experience in the matter of promotion but it does not show that the ad hoc service would also count for determining seniority. The seniority list, which had been prepared and which is the subject of challenge itself was said to be only an interim seniority list and it was not a final seniority list. 3. Taking the contention of the respondent in the written statement that the subject of challenge was only a tentative seniority list, which had not been finalized and having regard to fact that the petitioners themselves are not present before the Court to indicate what came out of the final seniority list, the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 25, 2010 Pankaj*