HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.684 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2011 **** Rajinder Kumar Singla . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is presently working as a Sub Divisional Officer in the Punjab Mandi Board. His grievance appears to be against the determination of seniority of the Junior Engineers (the post which he was occupying earlier) in terms of the Punjab Government order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P18), whereby the Junior Engineers like him have been denied seniority w.e.f. 17.12.1985, namely, the date when they were appointed on regular basis by the then Chairman of the Board but those orders were set aside later on and their appointments were ordered to be treated as ‘promotion’. It appears that the petitioner was not a party to the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P18) passed by the State CWP No.684 of 2011.doc - 2 – Government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner is said to have come to know about this order only when he submitted his objection(s) against the tentative seniority list (Annexure P11) and during the course of his personal hearing given to him on 20.10.2010 vide memo dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure P17). (2). The petitioner’s further grievance is that the correct facts were not brought before the State Government at the time of passing of the revisional order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P18). (3). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of the considered view that if the objection(s) submitted by the petitioner against the tentative seniority list are turned down by the competent authority on the basis of the revisional order, referred to above, he would be well within his right to represent to the State Government and re-agitate the issue. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). It is directed that if any such representation is made by the petitioner to the State Government against the final seniority list, the same shall be considered by the competent authority and disposed of in accordance with law, uninfluenced of the earlier conclusion drawn vide order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P18). CWP No.684 of 2011.doc - 3 – (6). Disposed of. Dasti. 14.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge