C.W.P. No. 10695 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10695 of 2011 Date of Decision : June 03, 2011 Shashi Bala .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. N.S.Khandola, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, Tarsem Singh-respondent No. 6 has been transferred as a Mandi Supervisor from Market Committee, Jalandhar City, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner has been directed to be reverted to the post of Auction Recorder. He contends that there are four approved posts of Mandi Supervisor. Tarsem Singh was appointed as an Auction Recorder in the year, 1988 and thereafter, as a special case, because he belongs to the sportsman category and was member of the Kabbadi team of the Punjab Mandi Board, the said post of Auction C.W.P. No. 10695 of 2011 2 Recorder, on which he was working, was upgraded to the post of Mandi Supervisor on temporary basis. He contends that respondent No. 6 is holding a temporary post whereas the petitioner was promoted as a Mandi Supervisor although later than respondent No. 6 against one of the four sanctioned posts of Mandi Supervisor. He contends that now with the transfer of respondent No. 6 back to his parent Market Committee, Nurmahal, the petitioner, who is holding a post which is a sanctioned post, cannot be reverted to the post of Auction Recorder and as a matter of fact, respondent No. 6 should be reverted as Auction Recorder as he was holding a temporary post. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 6 was appointed as an Auction Recorder prior to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that he was appointed as a Mandi Supervisor also prior to the petitioner. The only contention, which has been raised which would go against respondent No. 6, is that his post of Auction Recorder was, as a personal measure, upgraded to the post of Mandi Supervisor on temporary basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 would not have been promoted as a Mandi Supervisor or that he was not eligible for appointment to the said post. Four posts, which are sanctioned, of which on one the petitioner states that she is holding, would not confer any right on her when a senior person, who is holding a post of Mandi Supervisor is to be transferred back to the Parent Market Committee where there are only four posts of Mandi Supervisor which are approved. A senior has a prior right to the post than a junior and if such a situation arises where there is no post available for accommodating a senior on a particular post, the junior-most has to C.W.P. No. 10695 of 2011 3 make way. This is what has happened in the case in hand. Since respondent No. 6 is senior to the petitioner as an Auction Recorder and then as a Mandi Supervisor on his transfer to Parent Market Committee where there are only four posts of Mandi Supervisor, the petitioner, who is junior most, has to make way over to him. There is no illegality in the order dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure P-6) as the same has been done in accordance with the settled principles of Service Law. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) June 03, 2011 JUDGE pj