Civil Writ Petition No.8903 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8903 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 08, 2011 Satbir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS M.D. University, Rohtak & another ....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. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in not considering him for promotion to the post of Assistant Security Officer. Post of Assistant Security Officer is a promotional post for Gun Man/ Head Security Man/ Security Guard. The promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Some basic educational qualification have also been prescribed. It is provided that the incumbent should be matric and must have 10 Civil Writ Petition No.8903 of 2009 -2- years experience as Security Guard or 5 years experience as Head Security Man or 3 years experience as Gun Man. The educational qualification being the same, the persons as Gun Man, Head Security Man and Security Guard, will be eligible for consideration for promotion depending upon fulfilling the criteria of experience. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was eligible for consideration, but was not promoted to the post of Assistant Security Officer and even not considered while respondent No.2, who was working as Gun man and much junior to the petitioner in the seniority list has been considered and promoted. The petitioner has placed on record the seniority list showing his name at seniority No.23, whereas respondent No.2 is shown at seniority No.115. The justification offered by the University is that respondent No.2 has wrongly been shown in the seniority list. It is shown that he is holding a Class III post, whereas the petitioner is class IV employee. This averment appears to have been made without providing any justifiable proof. The name of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 is mentioned in the common seniority list of Class IV employees issued and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. The seniority list as such is not disputed, but it is stated that the name of respondent No.2 was inadvertently mentioned in the seniority list. So far respondent No.2 has not come forward to challenge the seniority list or to urge that he has been wrongly shown in the seniority list. There is no other seniority list containing seniority of Class III employees placed on record. The Civil Writ Petition No.8903 of 2009 -3- seniority list was issued on 1.12.1996 and the promotions had been made in the year 2007. At this late stage to urge that name of respondent No.2 was inadvertently mentioned in the seniority list is apparently raised as a defence to justify the action of the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner has rightly made reference to the policy of promotion, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. The promotion to the post of Assistant Security Officer is from Gun Man, Head Security Man and Security Guard by way of seniority-cum-merit. Appointment to the said post can also be made by direct appointment. The Gun Man/Head Security Man/Security Guard having qualification of Matric and three years experience as Gun Man or 5 years experience as Head Security Man or 10 years experience as Security Guard, are eligible for consideration for promotion. The promotion concededly is to be made on seniority-cum-merit. The justification of the University to not to consider the petitioner in terms of seniority could only be if he had not fulfilled the requirement of educational qualification or experience. That is not the case. The petitioner though is working as Security Guard, but is having 10 years experience, thus, he was fully eligible for consideration for promotion . I have also perused the DPC proceedings where only name considered for promotion is that of respondent No.2. Once the other eligible persons were available for consideration, the University could not have ignored such persons for consideration for promotion. As per the policy, the petitioner as well as the other eligible persons would be entitled to be considered for promotion on Civil Writ Petition No.8903 of 2009 -4- the basis of policy seniority-cum-merit. Since the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion, the impugned promotion can not be termed to be fairly made. Let the University now reconsider the case of all eligible candidates for promotion on the basis of policy, whichever is being applied for such promotions. The University would be at liberty to promote any eligible person in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. February 8, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE