IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 846 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 State of Punjab and another …Appellants Versus Anil Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 18.1.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 11424 of 1993. It has been found that respondent No. 5-Shri Dharam Pal was promoted as Accountant Grade-II, vide order dated 20.8.1993 although he was junior to the writ petitioner-Shri Anil Kumar. The basis for the aforesaid claim was that the writ petitioner had passed the Municipal Accounts Examination and other paper involving Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, which is necessary qualification for promotion as Accountant Grade-II in the municipal service. He had passed this examination earlier in the year 1984 whereas respondent LPA No. 846 of 2010 (O&M) No. 5-Shri Dharam Pal had passed the aforesaid examination subsequently. The seniority was required to be fixed in accordance with the date of passing of the examination. Respondent No. 5-Shri Dharam Pal stands already retired and the writ petitioner-Shri Anil Kumar was promoted as Accountant Grade-II in the year 1995. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has directed the grant of notional promotion to the higher post from the date when respondent No. 5-Shri Dharam Pal was promoted i.e. 20.8.1993. He has also been granted all consequential benefits on such a fixation of pay on the promotional post. Having heard learned counsel, especially in view of the finding that the writ petitioner-Shri Anil Kumar was senior to respondent No. 5-Shri Dharam Pal, we are of the considered view that no interference of this Court would be warranted. Once the factual position has not been disputed, it is not possible to take a contrary view and hold that the writ petitioner-Shri Anil Kumar did not have any right to be considered for promotion. Anything to the contrary would result in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The appeal does not merit admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 22, 2010 JUDGE 2 LPA No. 846 of 2010 (O&M) Pkapoor 3