IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20848 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 28, 2010 Harjinder Pal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Superior Field Worker in District Bathinda against 15% promotion quota. 2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Superior Field Worker in the year 1978 and continued to work in that capacity upto 1993. The seniority list was drafted for the years 1988 to 1999 which has been CWP No.20848 of 2008 [2] placed on record as Annexure P-1. Perusal of Annexure P-1 indicates that it is the seniority list of `Seasonal Spray Staff’ of District Bathinda. The petitioner is reflected to have served for 759 days. 3. The petitioner felt threatened that his services would be terminated and therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.5743 of 1990. Order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Perusal of Annexure P-2 dated 10.10.1990 shows that the respondents were asked to consider the case of the petitioner for re- employment if any vacancy exists. 4. It seems that the petitioner was offered appointment in service on 89 days basis w.e.f. 3.1.1994 against Class IV post in Primary Health Centre, Talwandi Sabo for the period 22.9.1994 to 19.12.1994. Services of the petitioner however were again dispensed with at the conclusion of the period given above. The petitioner carried the dispute to the Labour Court at Bathinda. Reinstatement of the petitioner was ordered with continuity of service however, without back wages vide Order Annexure P-5. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he had served the management as CWP No.20848 of 2008 [3] Class IV employee. 5. In the context of the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that there are no rules/instructions for avenue of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Superior Field Worker. In such circumstances, the petitioner who was serving against a Class IV post, cannot be given promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any rule/instruction that could enable the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superior Field Worker against promotional quota. 7. In view of the above, no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 28, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?