CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 08, 2011 Ram Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....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. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 28.7.1971. He joined his duties on 5.8.1971. A decision was taken on 10.9.1981 to promote certain Forest Guards to the post of Forester. Nine Forest Guards were promoted as Forester. One Dayanand was promoted as Deputy Ranger on 1.6.1990, who had done training with the petitioner after appointment as Forest Guard. The petitioner states that he was not considered for undisclosed reasons. Gradation list of Foresters was issued during January 1986 and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr.No.121. In the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: seniority list issued in January 1995, the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.87 of the gradation list. Objections were invited in the year 1999. The petitioner filed a representation, seeking re-determination of his seniority vis-a-vis Mange Ram and some others, who were appointed in the year 1982-83. Mange Ram and others had claimed seniority in accordance with the statutory rules. The petitioner did nothing thereafter till promotion of 37 Foresters as Deputy Rangers on 5.5.2006. As per the petitioner, his claim was ignored. The petitioner has claimed promotion with effect from 1.3.2005. He had filed Civil Writ Petition No.18753 of 2007, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to decide his appeal by passing a speaking order. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed a contempt petition. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 24.6.2008. The respondents have justified their stand due to order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4600 of 1997 decided on 1.4.1999. In this case, a Division Bench of this Court had issued direction for preparing the seniority list from the date of initial appointments of Forest Guards and promotions were to be made accordingly. In Civil Writ Petition No.4600 of 1997, one Deputy Forest Ranger had challenged his reversion to the post of Forester. This petition was heard alongwith number of other writ petitions. Advocate General, Haryana, took up a stand before the Court that revised seniority list of Forest Guards in Haryana had been prepared with effect from 1.11.1966 and accordingly reversion, if any, will have to be viewed in the light of the changed seniority. All the persons sought CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: to be reverted were to be given show cause notice and thereafter the appropriate order was to be passed. Without challenging the seniority, which was revised as afore-mentioned, the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.6545 of 2009, challenging the same order now impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner has now made a grievance that he was senior to some persons in the seniority list as it stood on 1.1.1995. Some of his juniors were promoted and shown senior to the petitioner without taking into account the date of their appointment. This ofcourse, is done on the basis of the revised seniority list, which apparently is not forthcoming. Once a seniority list was revised pursuant to order passed by this Court in the year 1999, the action of the petitioner to claim seniority on the basis of seniority list issued in the year 1995 is misplaced. There is no mention made to the seniority list issued after 1999. There is not even any viable challenge raised against such seniority list, which may have been revised as per the undertaking given on behalf of the State before this Court long ago in the year 1999. The petitioner has not shown the change seniority list to show that he is senior to any person, who has been promoted or is being promoted. As per the case pleaded in the writ petition, I do not see any merit in the claim made by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 08, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE