Civil Writ Petition No.10935 of 1989 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 04, 2009 Tek Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.18,22,24,32,33,38,45,49, 54 to 60. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to consider the petitioner senior to respondent Nos.4 to 52 by taking his seniority from the date of first Civil Writ Petition No.10935 of 1989 : 2 : entry into the Government service. The mention to facts in brief would suffice. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and was appointed as skilled Coolie (Class IV post) in the P.W.D., Public Health Department on 13.3.1972. He joined the duties on the same date and thereafter served the department to best of his ability. As per the averment in the petition, the services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f.24.7.1980. While issuing the seniority list, which was circulated on 26.12.1988, the petitioner was assigned at Sr.No.111 of the tentative seniority list. All the effected persons were given liberty to file representation within 21 days of issuance of this tentative seniority list. The seniority was assigned to various persons from the date of their first entry into the service. The petitioner was assigned this number at seniority list by mentioning his date of joining the service to be 30.5.1974, whereas the petitioner had joined the service on 13.3.1972. The correct factual position, however, would emerge from the reply. It is stated in the reply that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 22.5.1974 and he was taken back in service again on 6.6.1973 w.e.f. 30.5.1974. This is the reason that the petitioner was assigned seniority on the basis of his entry into the service being 30.5.1974. The petitioner would accordingly plead that his date of entry into the service is to be taken as 13.3.1972. The termination was only for the purpose of giving notional break to the petitioner as he was again put back into the service after expiry of eleven days in the same capacity on work charge basis. In order to succeed, the petitioner was required to Civil Writ Petition No.10935 of 1989 : 3 : challenge the order dated 22.5.1974 vide which his services were terminated. In the absence of challenge, it would not be possible to assign the date of seniority to the petitioner by taking his entry into service to be 13.3.1972. Without challenging the order of his termination, the petitioner would not be in a position to succeed to get seniority assigned to him with effect from his initial appointment. Services of the petitioner were terminated which he never challenged till date. He was taken back in service in the year 1974. He was regularised in the year 1980 and till then he had not taken any action to challenge the order of his regularisation or otherwise to impugn the order of his termination. The present writ petition was filed in the year 1989 when the seniority list was prepared. The petitioner cannot succeed until the order of termination dated 22.5.1974 is standing. Since there is no challenge made to this order, the relief claimed in the writ petition obviously cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. November 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE