C.W.P. No. 6684 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6684 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: December 08, 2009 Surinder Randhawa and Another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. N.K. Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure P-3 whereby respondent no. 3, Shri Rohni Kumar, was given the deemed date of promotion as Assistant w.e.f. 01.11.1966 and as Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 02.09.1979. Prayer further is for quashing Annexure P-2 whereby respondent no. 3 had been promoted as Traffic Manager w.e.f. 25.06.1987 in ignorance of the seniority and status of the petitioners who are senior to respondent no. 3. 2. Perusal of order Annexure P-3 shows that respondent no. 3 was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 02.09.1979. Vide order Annexure P-2, the said respondent was given seniority above Sh. C.W.P. No. 6684 of 1994 2 Bhajna Ram (since dead). 3. In the petition, it has been brought out that petitioner no. 1 joined the Transport Department as a Clerk on 14.03.1960. Petitioner no. 2 joined the department in Class-III category on 26.06.1975. In the seniority list circulated which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, name of petitioner no. 1 has been shown at Sr. No. 17 and that of petitioner no. 2 at Sr. No. 7. Respondent no. 3 has been shown at Sr. No. 27 in the said seniority list. It has been claimed that the petitioners were senior and deserved to be promoted, however, instead, respondent no. 3 has been given the benefit as is evident from Annexures P-3 and P-2. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that orders of promotion of Shri Rohni Kumar had been withdrawn on 07.04.1987 and he had been reverted back to the post of clerk and, therefore, cause of action does not survive in favour of the petitioners who claimed seniority over and above Shri Rohni Kumar. 5. In view of the statement given on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners are left with no claim as against respondent no. 3. 6. Disposed of. 08.12.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) Shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?