IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2009 Dharam Pal ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate for respondent No. 5. RANJIT SINGH J. Counsel for the petitioner has joined as Beldar on 01.12.1978. W.e.f. 11.03.1985, the petitioner's cadre was changed and he was made Fitter Coolie. The petitioner was subsequently regularised in this cadre w.e.f. 01.01.1987. The petitioner claims to be the senior most Fitter Coolie as per the date of joining and regularisation. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to say that respondent No. 5 joined the post of Fitter Helper on 10.07.1984 and his services were regularised on 01.04.1993. As claimed in the petition, respondent No. 5 thus would be junior to the petitioner as per the date of joining and regularisation. The grievance is that respondent No. 5 has been promoted to the post of Fitter Grade-II ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. Though the State has filed the reply to say that the petitioner was Fitter Coolie on 11.03.1985 whereas respondent No. 5 was joined as Fitter Helper on 10.07.1984 to contend that respondent Civil Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2009 -2- No. 5 would rank senior to the petitioner. However, counsel representing respondent No. 5 would say that the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 5 is immaterial. The counsel would point out to the rule position to say that Fitter Coolie, Fitter Helper and Plumber Helper are different cadres and are to be promoted as per the ratio laid down in the rule. The rule has been referred to in the writ petition, which clearly specifies that 50% of promotion from Fitter Helper, Plumber Helper and Fitter Coolie is to be done in the ratio of 16:16:18 percent respectively. This obviously mean that Fitter Helper, Plumber Helper and Fitter Coolie are separate cadres and are to be considered for promotion as per the percentage provided in the rule. The seniority of these different cadres are, thus, immaterial. Each person has to be considered for promotion as per the percentage provided in the rule and accordingly the claim made in the petition on the ground that the petitioner would deserve promotion ahead of respondent No. 5 is misconceived. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. August 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE