CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12675 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21, 2010 Tek Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K. L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is a Class IV employee (Storekeeper). The petitioner claims that there are no service rules governing their service conditions, though there are service Rules for Class III (Group C) Clerks employed in the Department. 20% of the posts of Clerks are to be filled from amongst Group D employees and from those Group C employees lower in grade than Clerks. A tentative seniority list of Class IV Group D employees was circulated on 15.9.2009. Number of names of Telephone Attendants (Group C) were also shown in the same seniority list. Names of some employees already promoted or retired were also included. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12675 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: petitioner represented against the same. Another tentative seniority list was circulated on 23.2.2010 without considering the objections. The petitioner filed fresh objections. The Executive Engineer had also written on 9.6.2009 that the Telephone Attendants were wrongly included in the list of Class IV employees. Still the final seniority list was issued without considering the objections. Accordingly, the writ petition is filed seeking direction that the respondents be directed to consider and decide the objections. Nothing is pointed out in the petition or during the course of arguments, which would regulate the manner of preparing or maintaining the seniority of Class IV employees. It is also not disclosed as to on what ground the petitioner has made a challenge to the seniority list as prepared and how he has been prejudiced with the seniority list as issued. No cause is, thus, apparently pleaded to show any violation of the rights of the petitioner, which could call for interference. Dismissed. July 21, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE