CWP No.10447 of 1997 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 08.02.2010 Pritam Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KHLI Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Amit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.PC Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector in the year 1962. Thereafter, he was selected as Junior Technical Assistant through the Punjab Public Service Commission and appointed on 2.12.1968. He was promoted to the post of Senior Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis. He was regularised as such with effect from 26.11.1979. He earned further promotion as Junior Technical Officer with effect from 17.5.1989. It is stated that the government has fixed seniority of one Chanan Singh as Junior Technical Assistant, Senior Technical Assistant and Junior Technical Officer with effect from 20.9.1967, 8.2.1968 and 21.11.1969, respectively, vide order dated 26.4.1989 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner has made a representation for notional promotion as Senior Technical Assistant with effect from 22.11.1969, allegedly on the ground that the said vacancy was available in view of Annexure P-1 as Chanan Singh was granted promotion to CWP No.10447 of 1997 : 2 the post of Junior Technical Officer with effect from the said date. The petitioner accordingly claimed that his date of promotion be shifted to 21.11.1969 on account of availability of vacancy. The petitioner also relies upon Annexures P-9 and P-10. From the perusal of Annexure P-9, a circular issued by the Government, it appears that the government has prohibited the grant of retrospective promotion except under orders of the Court and the orders by the government in appeal. Similarly, Annexure P-10, is another government circular wherein it has been notified that eligibility of a government servant for promotion should be taken as on the date when the vacancy occur. It was observed that it has been seen that the promotions are being delayed to enable the ineligible officers to acquire eligibility with the passage of time. It was in this context that the aforesaid circular was issued taking the eligibility on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. Both these circulars cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and confer any right upon him to seek retrospective promotion merely on account of the availability of the vacancy. It is a settled proposition of law that availability of vacancy does not create any right of appointment or promotion. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was next to Chanan Singh in the order of seniority and he alone was eligible to be considered for promotion in the year 1969. The other grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the seniority qua respondent No.3. Admittedly, respondent No.3 was CWP No.10447 of 1997 : 3 promoted against the direct recruitment quota. Respondent No.3 was appointed on the said post by direct recruitment and on his promotion the petitioner was adjusted as Senior Technical Assistant with effect from 26.11.1979. Thus, the petitioner was adjusted against the vacancy fallen vacant from the quota of promotees with effect from 26.11.1979. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was already working on the post. Respondent No.3 who was appointed and joined later in time than the petitioner but he has been adjusted with effect from 26.10.1979. According to the petitioner's own case, he was promoted against the direct recruitment quota. His promotion was only on ad hoc basis. On the appointment of regular incumbent, the petitioner has to make way for him and accordingly respondent No.3 was appointed against the direct recruitment quota against the vacancy which was hither to held by the petitioner. I do not find that there is any illegality or infirmity in granting/fixing the seniority of the petitioner from the date the vacancy falling to his quota has accrued. The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion and seniority is perfectly justified not to be interfered with. Petition is dismissed. No costs. 08.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO