IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.14 of 2010 Date of decision : June 21, 2010 Meera Kumari …Petitioner. Versus Lashkari Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) A suit has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4, who are Grade-II Officers of General Category in Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, respondent No.5 herein, for declaration that they are senior to the present petitioner, who has been impleaded as a defendant in the said suit, and that without considering them (the plaintiffs) for promotion to Grade-I post, present petitioner and some other persons, who are also impleaded as defendants in that suit, be not promoted to Grade-I. 2. Admitted facts are that the plaintiffs and the present petitioner and other defendants were appointed as Grade-IV employees, as direct recruits. All the plaintiffs were Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… senior, in Grade-IV, to the petitioner and other defendants. However, the petitioner and other defendants got promotion to Grade-III and thereafter Grade-II, on account of their belonging to reserved categories of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner and other defendants were promoted to Grade-II, sometime in the year 1999. Plaintiffs- respondents caught up with them in the same Grade in the year 2005. They all belong to General Category. 3. In the year 2008, the Bank (employer of the parties) wanted to make promotions to Grade-I. Petitioner and other defendants, belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, were considered and sought to be promoted to Grade-I. Plaintiffs then filed a suit for declaration that they were senior to the defendants and that without considering them, defendants could not have been considered for promotion. They also challenged the Seniority List, showing the defendants senior to them in Grade-II. 4. Plaintiffs also filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking issuance of temporary injunction, directing their employer not to make any promotion, till the decision of the suit or until they too were considered for promotion. 5. Petitioner and other defendants contested the suit. They also opposed the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. …3… 6. Trial Court dismissed the application. Plaintiffs went in appeal against the order of dismissal of their application to the Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction, restraining the Bank (employer of the parties) from considering the petitioner and other defendants for promotion, for the post of Grade-I, till the disposal of the suit. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Seniority List of the plaintiffs and the defendants is not on the record of the present petition, but it is stated to be on the record of the Civil Suit. Its copy is available with the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, which has been shown to me. There appears a note at its foot, to the effect that it is subject to the instructions issued by the Government, vide Circular dated 27th May, 1996. As per these instructions, employees of General Category, on catching up with their junior colleagues of reserved category, promoted earlier, on account of the scheme of reservation, are to be ranked senior, because of their being senior in the feeder cadre. 9. Now, if the Seniority List is subject to the aforesaid instructions of the State Government and admittedly now both the plaintiffs and the petitioner and other defendants …4… are in the same cadre as Grade-II, petitioner and other defendants cannot claim that they are senior to the plaintiffs, on the basis of the Seniority List. 10. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the plaintiffs-respondents were not eligible for promotion in the year 2008, because they did not have three years experience in Grade-II, on that date. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were promoted in December, 2005 and they had not completed three years, in Grade-II, in the year 2008, when promotions to Grade-I were sought to be made. But, there is another set of Government instructions, adopted by the employer of the parties, per which, if an employee senior in a given cadre is ineligible for further promotion, on account of not fulfilling the condition of length of service, but the junior one becomes eligible, on account of his length of service being more than the official lacking the condition of experience, shall also be eligible and considered for promotion. 11. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. The order of the learned District Judge is, however, modified to the extent that in case the Bank so desires, it may proceed with the promotions to Grade-I cadre, by considering the plaintiffs as also the defendants, for the vacant posts, and of course all other eligible persons. …5… Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. June 21, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J