IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6011 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.4.2010. Shakuntala Bhardwaj --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner and the private respondent were appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (for short 'A.N.M.') subsequently redesignated as Multipurpose Health Workers (Female) in the years 1978 and 1981 respectively. Precisely stated, the petitioner was appointed on 8.12.1978 and respondent no.4 on 12.8.1980. In the seniority list of the cadre of service, the petitioner was admittedly at Sr. No. 1189 and the private respondent at Sr. No. 1399. It is admitted case of the petitioner that in the year 1987 the private respondent was deputed for promotional training, whereas the petitioner was ignored at the relevant time. The petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation dated 14.8.1989 claiming the right to training being senior to the private respondent and some others. The petitioner even filed CWP No. 8017 of 1990 seeking a direction for deputing her for the promotional training. This petition was admitted to hearing and a direction was issued to depute the petitioner for promotional training. Petitioner was, accordingly, deputed for the training which she completed. On the basis of the training, the petitioner was promoted as Multipurpose Health Supervisor (Female) vide order dated 1.6.1990. Now CWP. No. 6011 of 2010 -2- the petitioner has filed this petition claiming seniority over and above the private respondent. It is more than 22 years now that the private respondent was promoted over and above the petitioner. Neither in the earlier writ petition, filed by the petitioner, nor at any other stage the petitioner challenged the promotion of the private respondent or claimed seniority. It is settled principle of law that the seniority settled over years cannot be disturbed. I find no valid ground to interfere in the seniority position at this belated stage particularly when the petitioner did not claim this relief in the earlier writ petition, though, it was available to her. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 5.4.2010. lucky