IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18089 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.01.2010. Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 5 only at this stage. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to file any counter reply on behalf of the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks quashing of the final seniority list dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure P-3) as well as the consequential show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby he is sought to be reverted from C.W.P.No .18089 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the post of Block Primary Education Officer to the Centre Head Teacher. The petitioner's case is that though respondent Nos.6 & 7 (S/Shri Madan Gopal and Harjit Singh) had joined as JBT Teachers much before him but in District Ludhiana, while the petitioner was appointed on 1.10.1980, the above named respondents were appointed much later on 18.5.1994 and 18.10.1995, respectively. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the provisions contained in the Punjab State Education Class- III (Primary Schools Cadre) Service Rules, 1997, the JBT Teachers constitute a District Cadre and seniority is assigned on the basis of continuous length of service within the district. On this premise, the petitioner claims himself senior to respondent Nos.6 & 7. The show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner proposes his reversion on the ground that pursuant to an order dated October 21, 2008 passed by this Court in CWP No.71765 of 2008, the claim of respondent Nos.6 & 7 has been reconsidered and they having been found senior to the petitioner and are required to be promoted to the post of DPOs and as there is no vacancy available with the department and, thus, the petitioner is liable to be reverted. It is the petitioner's own case that on receipt of the impugned show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-4), he has submitted a reply dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure P-5). However, no decision has been taken by the respondents on the said reply so far. Meanwhile, the petitioner apprehends his reversion. C.W.P.No .18089 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel at some length and without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's case at this stage, I am of the considered view that the appropriate recourse at this stage would be to direct respondent No.1 to consider the above noticed claim of the petitioner regarding re- determination of seniority viz-a-viz the private respondents and thereafter take a final decision on the impugned show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 by passing a speaking order. Respondent No.1 shall do the needful within a period of three months. Till then the reversion of the petitioner shall remain stayed. Disposed of. Dasti. 12-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE