CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9478 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 18,2010 Chandgi Ram and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. S. K.Garg Narwana, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the petition is for quashing order dated 1.5.2008, whereby respondent No.4, person junior to the petitioners, has been given deemed date of promotion as Assistant Revenue Clerk with effect from 31.5.1991. The petitioners accordingly pray for direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners from the same date as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9478 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: is granted to their junior. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Canal Patwari on adhoc basis on 4.12.1971. His services were regularised with effect from 8.1.1973. The services of petitioner No.2 were regularised with effect from 13.9.1974. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Canal Patwari on adhoc basis on 20.3.1979. His services were regularised with effect from 15.9.1982. On this basis, the petitioners claim that they were senior to respondent No.4 on the basis of length of service. They all have been working in the same circle and accordingly the petitioners were always shown senior to respondent No.4. Reference is also made to the seniority list, where the names of the petitioners and respondent No.4 have appeared. In view of the direction issued in Civil Writ Petition No.1786 of 1997, the seniority of Canal Patwari was maintained at the State level for all purposes instead of circle level. The State level seniority of such Patwaris was accordingly prepared and circulated on 27.9.2002. Even in this seniority list, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were shown senior to respondent No.4. Thus, it is stated that from the very beginning, the petitioners have always remained senior to respondent No.4. Accordingly, the petitioners are aggrieved to notice that respondent No.4, who is much junior, has been promoted, as an Assistant Revenue Clerk, vide order dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9478 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: 1.5.2008 but with effect from 31.5.1991. The petitioners have accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn this order and to seek direction that they be promoted with effect from the date respondent No.4 has been so promoted. In the reply filed, it is stated that earlier rules have been amended and new Rules known as Haryana Irrigation Department, Revenue and Assessment Clerks (Group C) Service Rules, 1991, have been promulgated with effect from 25.6.1991. As per these Rules, promotions are to be made on the basis of the State level seniority. It is then stated that there were 8 posts available, which were to be filled up in terms of the new promulgated rules. The vacancies, which were existing prior to the amendment of these Rules, are required to be filled as per the unamended Rules. Reference is then made to Rule 5 of the Rules, which provides that person who is more than 35 years of age, could not be considered for promotion. It is accordingly stated that as per the un-amended rules, the petitioners could not be promoted as they were over 35 years of age and as such, were not eligible for consideration. Counsel for the petitioner not only disputes the applicability of this Rule, which, according to him, would apply to direct appointment and not to the cases of promotion but has also referred to a decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.14967 of 1997 (Ved Pal and others Vs. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9478 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: State of Haryana and others), decided on 30.4.1998, holding that no age limit could be provided for a person to be considered for promotion. In this case, it is observed that providing age limit for the purpose of promotion may be termed as arbitrary as the person may not get a chance for promotion for sufficient long period, the same being dependent on number of posts that are available in the promotional cadre. The same rules were under consideration in this case. Mr.Rathee has also placed before me another decision dated 30.5.1994 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.1667 of 1994 title (Azad Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) by another Division Bench of this Court, where similar view was earlier expressed. Accordingly, the action of the official respondents in promoting private respondent No.4, ignoring the claim of the petitioners, can not be sustained. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion from the date respondent No.4 was promoted and grant him the benefit, as were granted to the said respondent. November 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE