IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 14199 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 16, 2010 Naresh Kumari and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing instructions dated 19.3.2010 (P-10), issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No. 2 stipulating that no lady Head Constable should be detailed for Intermediate School Course, which is necessary for further promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector, without firstly completing their mandatory period of two years on the post of lady Head Constable. 2. The grievance appears to be that during the probation period there should not be any bar from sending the lady Head Constables for further training necessary for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector. 3. At the outset, we asked learned counsel for the petitioners that from the seniority list and the reservation roster it should be shown that the petitioners, namely, Ms. Naresh Kumari and Ms. Parveen Kumari, have CWP No. 14199 of 2010 reached the stage when their turn for promotion is matured. The petitioners have claimed that they would come on a roster point. In order to explain the right of the petitioners, a reference has been made to the working seniority list of women police officials of Rohtak Range (P-6). It is conceded that the lady Head Constables up to Sr. No. 53 have been considered and promoted. If that be so, the name of petitioner No. 2-Ms. Parveen Kumari, which appears at Sr. No. 57 of the said list, would not reach, especially when persons at Sr. Nos. 54, 55 and 56 are yet to be detailed for Intermediate School Course. The name of petitioner No. 1-Ms. Naresh Kumari has not even been shown in the aforesaid list. 4. Having heard learned counsel we find that there is no cause of action for the petitioners to approach this Court because neither their turn on the basis of seniority has matured nor they could claim any such right by virtue of any roster point. Despite adjournment given on 11.8.2010, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the factual or legal basis to make such a claim. There is, thus, no merit in this petition. However, we make it clear that this order shall not have any bearing on the question as to whether a probationer Head Constable could be deputed to Intermediate School Course during the period of probation. As the instant petition has been decided on factual basis as the rights of the petitioners to be considered for promotion and consequentially to be detailed for training has not yet arisen. The writ petition is bereft of any merit dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 2 CWP No. 14199 of 2010 August 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3