CWP No.12963 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12963 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2011 Rajinder Kumar and others ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents II CWP No.17215 of 1991 (O&M) Gian Chand and others ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. AG, Punjab. for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 54. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. Both the cases address the same relief. The petitioners who had been appointed as Clerks in Education Department claimed seniority over private respondents No.4 to 54, who had undertaken the exams and passed the Assistant Grade Test for further promotion as Senior Assistant. The cause of action for the petition is the interpretation to the instructions given by the CWP No.12963 of 1991 (O&M) [2] Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab on 21.01.1991 exempting the need for qualifying the Assistant Grade Test to Clerks, who had completed 18 years of regular service as Clerk/ Senior Clerk/ Junior Assistant. Significantly, these proceedings issued under Rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 states that these orders shall take immediate effect. 2. The claim of the petitioners was that private respondents No.4 to 54, who were juniors to them at the time of entry in service, shall still be treated as juniors in the promotion post, although they had passed Assistant Grade Test even before 21.01.1991 and that the petitioners were entitled to carry forward their seniority position by virtue of the amended instructions; Since they were exempted from taking that test, the seniority should be maintained for consideration in the promotion post. The petitioners' contention is clearly untenable for the amended rule could be operative only from 21.01.1991 and will provide an exemption from taking this test for consideration for promotion only w.e.f. 21.01.1991 and it is not the petitioners' case that any of the juniors had been promoted even before 21.01.1991 without passing the Assistant Grade Test. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners but I have still proceeded with the case on merits, since the matter involves no question of fact but only requires an interpretation to the amended rules referred to above. The petitioners shall not be entitled to any relief and both the writ petitions are dismissed. JULY 21, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE