CWP No.4916 of 1991.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4916 of 1991 Date of Decision: 04.03.2010 **** Mrs. Baljinder Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . 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: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent-State ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 15.01.1991 (Annexure P6), whereby, her objections against the tentative seniority list of Clerks, have been turned down. (2). The petitioner objected against placement of the private respondents-3 to 14 above her in the said tentative seniority list which was prepared as per the inter-se- merit of the candidates at the time of their selection by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab. CWP No.4916 of 1991.doc - 2 – (3). The petitioner, on the other hand, wanted her placement in the said seniority above the private respondents on the plea that the private respondents did not join the posts within the stipulated period and as such cannot be assigned seniority as per the merit list. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the petitioner’s contention. Once the petitioner and the private respondents competed and were selected together and have been appointed in the same Department, their inter-se- seniority has to be determined as per their inter-se-merit at the time of selection. Even if the private respondents joined later in time and got extended their joining period, this, by itself, is no ground to downgrade them in the seniority list. (5). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.03.2010 vishal shonkar