CWP no. 15306 of 1995 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 15306 of 1995 (O&M) Decided on : 04-11-2011 Walaiti Ram ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocate for Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the action of the respondents vide which his seniority has been wrongly fixed. The petitioner joined the service as JBT Teacher after due selection by Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab in the year 1960. Thereafter he remained posted at various places. Then he was transferred to Ambala at his own request which duties he joined on 17.4.1963. His grievance is that the seniority list of JBT Teacher is being prepared from time to time but the petitioner was not given proper seniority. Ostensibly, the respondents-department has taken his date of appointment as the date of joining in Ambala i.e 17.4.1963. In reply, the respondents have stated that prior to 19.1.1962 the cadre of JBT Teacher was a division cadre and after the said date, Patiala Division was split up and was made a District cadre. The petitioner remained in this District and subsequently he was transferred from Patiala CWP no. 15306 of 1995 (O&M) 2 District to Ambala District on his own request where he joined on 17.4.1963. Since seniority is maintained District wise, there was no question of assigning him any other different seniority to the one which was assigned to him. It was next pleaded that the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly after lapse of 33 years. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the averments made by the respondents in their reply have gone uncontroverted as there is no counter affidavit filed by the petitioner to either clarify or negate the contents of the reply. This leaves the Court to evaluate the grievance in view of what has been stated in the petition and in the reply. There is no reference to any rule or notification which could have convinced this Court to the contrary. Besides, the grievance has been raised after a lapse of three decades. No ground to grant the prayer of the petitioner has been made out. Hence, dismissed. November 4, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge