CWP No. 18382 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 18382 of 2008 Date of decision: October 23, 2008 SI Balwinder Singh --- Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ---- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner in this case has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated March 14, 2008 and August 27, 2008, Annexures P6 & P8 respectively, whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority above respondent No. 5 has been rejected. The petitioner has averred that after passing the basic Armourer course in 1984, he gained 28 years' experience in the Armourer line. Thereafter he has been performing the duties of Armourer and Head Armourer in different Punjab Armed Police Battalions. According to the petitioner, cadre of armourers is a separate cadre, seniority whereof has to be maintained separately. In the said cadre the petitioner is senior most. However, one Hakam Singh, respondent No. 5 herein, who is otherwise reflected in the general cadre, has been granted seniority in the armourer cadre over and above him. The petitioner is aggrieved of this action of respondents No.1 to 4. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the CWP No. 18382 of 2008 (2) records annexed with the petition. It appears that aggrieved by the order Annexure P6, the petitioner served a legal notice dated March 24, 2008 upon the official respondents. Since his legal notice was not decided, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 7930 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of on May 13, 2008 with a direction that the legal notice submitted by the petitioner be decided within a period of two months. The decision was thereafter taken by the Director General of Police on August 27, 2008, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P8 to this petition. This order is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. In his detailed order, the Director General of Police has observed tht SI Balwinder Singh ( petitioner) was recruited as a Constable on October 1, 1981 whereas Hakam Singh was recruited as a Constable on May 24, 1973. SI Balwinder Singh passed his basic Armourer course on December 8, 1984 and was promoted as Head Constable on June 13, 1991 whereas Hakam Singh passed his basic Armourer course on December 10, 1976 and was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. December 11, 1989. The petitioner was promoted as ASI w.e.f. November 2, 2001 and further as SI w.e.f. April 20, 2007. On the other hand, Hakam Singh respondent No. 5 was promoted as ASI w.e.f. June 15, 1999 and SI w.e.f. December 28, 2004. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 were sent for undergoing Armourer course Class-II without taking into account the inter se seniority of the armourer cadre of Armed Battallions. It has been made clear in the order that Armourer staff is a separate cadre and the personnel are not required to qualify Lower School Course, Intermediate School Course and Upper School Course for promotion as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector respectively. However, while making promotion credit is given to those personnel who qualify the Armourer's course of corresponding level in CWP No. 18382 of 2008 (3) order of their seniority. In the present case, however, date of passing of Armourer's course Class II by both these personnel was not considered material as both of them were deputed without taking into account inter se seniority of personnel of Armourer cadre of Armed Battalions. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the order, Annexure P8. His only contention is that respondent No. 5 has been placed above the petitioner despite he being junior to the petitioner. However, a perusal of the order Annexure P8 shows that the petitioner passed his basic Armourer course on December 8, 1984 and was promoted as Head Constable on June 13, 1991 while respondent No. 5 passed his basic Armourer course on December 10, 1976 and was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. December 11, 1989. The contention of the counsel, therefore, that the petitioner is senior in service to respondent no. 5 is not supported by any rule, regulation or legal authority. Besides, the personnel in the Armourer cadre are not required to undergo any Lower School Course, Intermediate School Course and Upper School Course for further promotion. Therefore, the date of passing the Armouer Upgrading Class II course by the Armourer personnel is also not relevant for the purpose of further promotion. It appears that respondent No. 5 underwent the basic Armourer's course earlier in time than the petitioner and was promoted as Head Constable prior to the date the petitioner was promoted. Subsequent promotions of Hakam Singh were also earlier to that of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his argument that the petitioner is senior to respondent no. 5. It has not been shown how the order Annexure P8 is legally defective. In the absence of any such argument, we are convinced that no interference is called for in the impugned order. No other argument has been addressed. CWP No. 18382 of 2008 (4) We, therefore, find that the prayer made in the writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [Rajan Gupta] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge October 23, 2008 `ask'