IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11316 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 01, 2010. Raj Kumar Bhagat .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.P.Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner who is working as Instruction in the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, seeks quashing of the order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-10) whereby his claim for retrospective promotion as Superintendent Grade-II has been rejected by passing a speaking order. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that he was senior to respondent No.4-Smt.Harminder Kaur and ought to have been promoted as Superintendent Grade-II before she was promoted as such on 26.12.2001. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Local Government Department, vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-10) has rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that as per the Service Rules, the Personal Assistants/Inspectors/Senior Scale C.W.P.No .11316 of 2010 2 Stenographers were eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II on completion of atleast 10 years' experience on any of these posts. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector on 8.7.1992. He was thus not having the requisite experience of 10 years on 25.12.2001. Contrary to it, Mrs.Harminder Kaur-respondent No.4 was possessing more than 10 years' experience as Senior Scale Stenographer/ Senior Assistant and was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Since the petitioner and Smt.Harminder Kaur-respondent No.4 belong to two different streams, the Competent Authority appears to be right in holding that there was no inter-se seniority between them. Similarly, the petitioner's claim that the condition of 10 years' experience in the feeder cadre ought to have been relaxed as a special case, has not found favour with the Competent Authority for the reason that there existed no such provision under the Rules or in the reservation policy. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. July 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE