C.W.P. No.13507 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13507 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2009 Jagdish Lal .....PETITIONER Versus Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to promote him from the post of Cleaner to the post of Driver. Undisputedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Mali on T.M.R. w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 3.8.1993. Subsequently, w.e.f. 16.2.1999, he was re-designated as a Cleaner. The further promotion from the post of Cleaner is to the post of Driver. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not promoted to the post of Driver in spite of the fact that he had cleared the field test and possessing a valid driving licence for Heavy Transport Vehicles. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 7.7.2008 on the respondents stating therein that S/Shri Prempal Singh and Ashok Kumar, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted as Drivers from the posts of Cleaners in the year 2006. It was stated that both Prempal Singh and Ashok Kumar joined the C.W.P. No.13507 of 2009 -2- service as Malis on 1.6.1986 and 5.6.1986, respectively. When the respondents denied the claim of the petitioner by giving reply to the said legal notice, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the reply given by the respondents to the legal notice, I do not find any ground to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. In the reply, it has been stated that when the earlier promotion was made, the petitioner stood second in the test and since there was only one vacancy of Driver, therefore, he could not be promoted as Driver. It has also been stated that as and when any new vacancy will arise, the claim of the petitioner will be considered against that vacancy. Regarding promotion of S/Shri Prempal Singh and Ashok Kumar, the alleged juniors, it has been stated that Ashok Kumar was re-designated as a Cleaner prior to the petitioner, therefore, he was not junior to the petitioner. Regarding Prempal Singh, it has been stated that though he was re-designated as a Cleaner after the petitioner, but he was promoted as a Driver being a Scheduled Caste candidate under the Scheduled Caste quota. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner that by ignoring his claim the junior to the petitioner were promoted as Drivers, have not been substantiated. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner argued that while making the promotion to the post of Driver, the seniority on the post of Mali was to be taken into consideration, as has been followed by the Department in some other cases. I do not find any force in the said contention. The seniority for the purpose of promotion to the post of Driver is to be taken from the date of re-designation of the employee to the post of Cleaner. Since the promotion to the post of Driver has been made by taking C.W.P. No.13507 of 2009 -3- the date of re-designation to the post of Cleaner and no junior of the petitioner, who was re-designated later than the petitioner, has been promoted to the post of Driver, I do not find any ground to interfere in this petition. Dismissed. September 01, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE