CWP No. 16345 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16345 of 2006(O&M) Decided on : 02-07-2010 Dev Raj ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 1-2 None for respondent no.3. MAHESH GROVER, J This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing order dated 30.6.2005 passed by the Chairman, Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent no.2) vide which respondent no.3 was promoted to the post of District Village Industries Organiser from the post of Instructor-cum-Mechanic (Fibre). A prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus has also been made seeking a direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 to promote the petitioner in place of respondent no.3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Board as District Inspector (VOI) on 14.9.1976 in the pay scale of Rs.120- 250. According to the petitioner, respondent no.3 was promoted as Instructor-cum-Mechanic (Fibre) on 19.2.1980 which position is confronted by respondent no3 and he pleaded that he was appointed as Instructor-cum- CWP No. 16345 of 2006(O&M) 2 Mechanic (Fibre) after due selection on 19.2.1980 in the pay scales of 140- 300. Subsequently, with the revision of pay scales both the petitioner and respondent no.3 were placed in the same scale. The petitioner has based his claim for promotion to the post of District Village Industries Organiser by pleading that he is senior to the said respondent no.3. For the said purpose, he has referred to the tentative seniority lists circulated by the respondent-Board, which are on record as Annexure P-3 and P-4. No one has cared to put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the Court has been left with no other option but to evaluate the record with the assistance of learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been clearly averred that the petitioner was not senior to respondent no.3. A tentative seniority list was initially issued in the year 1991 wherein the petitioner was shown at serial no. 8 and respondent no.3 was reflected at serial no.13. Another seniority list followed in the year 1998 again showing the petitioner at serial no.29 over and above respondent no.3 who was at serial no.33. Objections were invited to the seniority list and respondent no.3 filed his objections claiming that since he was appointed in the higher pay scale in the year 1980, hence he should have been shown senior to the persons who were appointed in the pay scale of 120-250 which is the pay scale of petitioner as well. The said objections were considered and while preparing final seniority list, respondent no.3 was placed at serial no.1 in the cadre of Supervisors. This final seniority list was circulated on 11.10.2000 CWP No. 16345 of 2006(O&M) 3 against which the petitioner did not raise any objection. Even in the instant petition, no grievance has been made qua the seniority assigned to the petitioner. Petition is also silent regarding the rules of promotion. Similarly, written statement is silent about this aspect of the matter. There is also no averment made by the petitioner to show as to how these cadres are managed and how such promotions to the post of District Village Industries Organiser are to be made. Similarly the respondents have also conveniently not chosen to throw any light on this issue. In any eventuality, the Court is of the opinion that it is for the petitioner who was making a grievance of the promotion of respondent no.3 to the post of Instructor-cum- Mechanic (Fibre), to bring all these on record. In the absence of any pleading to this effect, the only course open to the Court is to evaluate the promotion by applying the test of prudence to say that the rule of seniority had to be respected, which seniority the petitioner had accepted without any demur. Petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate his claim. The Court, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, dismissed. July 02, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge