CWP No.3209 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3209 of 1992 Date of decision : 9-3-2009 H.C. Ahuja ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suvneet Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming writ of mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the seniority list of Assistant District Attorneys in the State of Haryana. The petitioner was appointed as Legal Assistant in the office of Legal Remembrancer & Secretary to Government Haryana. There was separate cadre of Prosecuting Sub Inspectors in the Department of Prosecution. However, in the year 1974, after enforcement of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, a decision was taken to absorb Prosecuting Sub Inspectors in the Police Department as Assistant District Attorneys Grade-II. It was decided that such CWP No.3209 of 1992 -2- Assistant District Attorneys Grade-II and the Legal Assistants in the office of Legal Remembrancer and the Prosecution Department be merged. However, the ratio between these two cadres would be decided later on. It was in the year 1979, the inter-se-seniority of the members of the cadres were decided to be fixed in the ratio of 5:2 i.e. Assistant District Attorneys Grade-II and Legal Assistants. The petitioner had also made a grievance in respect of Shri Shashi Pal Chadha shown at Sr. No.20 being placed as senior to the petitioner who placed at serial No.21 in the Gradation List circulated by letter dated 17-10-1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 1980, the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.111 whereas the name of the Shri Shashi Pal Chadha was at Sr. No.112. It is alleged that such change has been effected without any reason. The petitioner has challenged the assignment of seniority to the members of the cadre alleging the same to be in violation of Rule 12 of Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group B) Rules, 1979. When the matter came up for hearing on 06-03-2009, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has sought time to find out as to whether Shri Shashi Pal Chadha or any person junior to the petitioner has been appointed as Deputy District Attorney. It is not disputed that the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31-12-1996. Mr. Suvneet Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana states that neither Shri Shashi Pal Chadha nor any person junior to the CWP No.3209 of 1992 -3- petitioner has been promoted as Deputy District Attorney till the superannuation of the petitioner. In view of the said fact, the question of determination inter-se-seniority in the cadre of Assistant District Attorney is purely academic as the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the post of Deputy District Attorney in the absence of promotion of any junior to the petitioner to the said post. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 9-3-2009 JUDGE manju