IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.709 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 29, 2010 Gulshan Kumar …..Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Satish Goyal, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Pardeep Singh Poonia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana .. RANJAN GOGOI , J. : (Oral) Heard. In view of the controversy involved and as elaborate arguments have been heard, this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage. The appellant-writ petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 6486 of 1989 calling into question the proposed/contemplated promotion of respondent No.3 Shri M.P. Viz to the post of Tourist Officer. The principal ground advanced is that the feeder post for promotion to the post of Tourist Officer is Guide-cum-Clerk, whereas, respondent No.3 was holding the post of Assistant on promotion from the post of Clerk in the head office. In the writ petition though there was an initial interim order in favour of the petitioner, the same was subsequently vacated L.P.A. No.709 of 2010 - 2 - pursuant to which respondent No.3 was promoted as Tourist Officer. It is stated by the learned State counsel that respondent No.3 has, in the meantime, retired from service. The learned single Judge hearing the writ petition recorded the view that there is no difference in the functions of the Guide-cum-Clerk and Clerk and that the expression "Guide-cum-Clerk" is a legacy inherited from the joint Punjab where there used to be a number of hill stations where services of Guides were required. The learned single Judge, on the basis of materials on record, also took the view that in the State of Punjab, incumbents of both the posts were doing the same job. It was also recorded by learned single Judge that while the appellant was appointed as Guide-cum-Clerk in the year 1981, respondent No.3 was appointed as Clerk in the year 1971 and furthermore that the dates of promotion of these two incumbents to the post of Assistant are 17.12.1986 (petitioner) and 28.9.1976 (respondent No.3). On the said findings, the learned single Judge thought it proper to dismiss the writ petition. The appellant-writ petitioner has persisted with his grievance by filing the present appeal. From the information laid before this court by the learned State counsel, it would appear that the appellant-writ petitioner is holding the post of Deputy Superintendent as on date which is on a higher scale of pay than that of Tourist Officer. 2 L.P.A. No.709 of 2010 - 3 - The appeal, if answered favourably, would really work to the prejudice of the appellant-writ petitioner, though it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that in that event the appellant- writ petitioner would have the opportunity to serve in the field. Be that as it may, having considered the facts, as noticed, on which the order of the learned single Judge has been based, we do not find any infirmity in the said order so as to warrant interference with the same. LPA, therefore, is dismissed in the above terms. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) JUDGE September 29, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3