IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13807 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 05, 2011 Mahesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ***** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an unsuccessful original applicant is directed against the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') declining the claim made by him that he should be declared senior to respondent No.5. The basic premises for declining the relief to the petitioner is that he did not challenge the seniority list dated 17.01.2003 at a Judicial Forum or before the Department by filing any representation. When the seniority list was circulated, a period of one month was given to the petitioner and the same could not be availed by him. It was only in the report dated 25.01.2006 that the petitioner challenged the seniority list dated 05.02.2004, which resulted in passing of order dated 05.04.2006 (A-1) and was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. The respondent Department has clarified in the order that the seniority of the petitioner as Cabinman was required to be fixed from 22.02.1996 and not from CWP No.13807 of 2009 01.03.1993. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner initially belong to the cadre of Pointsman and he opted for the post of Cabinman. He qualified the trade test and was declared suitable for the post of Cabinman on 27.12.1995 and was actually posted as such on 22.02.1996. Accordingly, in the seniority list of Leverman-cum-Cabinman, the aforesaid date has been shown and the seniority list has been fixed viz-a-viz private respondents, who were promoted in the year 1991. The Tribunal also found that no person junior to him in the grade of Cabinman has been found to be shown above him. Therefore, the relief has been declined by the Tribunal. 2. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that once the petitioner has been declared eligible for his inclusion in the cadre of Leverman-cum-Cabinman on 27.12.1995 after passing the trade test then, he cannot claim any earlier date for the purposes of determining seniority. It has come on record that private respondents were promoted in the year 1991 and their names were included in the seniority list of Leverman-cum-Cabinman. Moreover, no person junior to the petitioner in the grade of Cabinman has been found to be shown above him and, therefore, he cannot claim that he is senior to private respondents. 3. The writ petition does not merit admission and is thus liable to be dismissed. 4. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) April 05, 2011 JUDGE Rajan 2