CWP No.2128 of 2005 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:21.05.2009 Prem Singh Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh through its Registrar. ... Petitioner. ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.BD Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjive Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner joined as Clerk in the year 1967 in the establishment of this Court. He was promoted as an Assistant in the year 1974. He was further promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II in the year 1996. In the year 1995 certain posts of Readers were available in the establishment of this Court. The petitioner applied for the post of Reader for which written examination was held on 11.08.1995. Petitioner was also interviewed on 14.10.1995. The petitioner was selected as Reader on 06.05.1997. One Ashok Kumar Sharma, filed Civil Writ Petition No.11646 of 1995 and he as granted permission to appear in the competitive examination. The petitioner along with one Desh Pal Singh Rana filed CWP No.2128 of 2005 : 2 : Civil Writ Petition No.18289 of 1996, challenging the selection of Readers. In the meantime, by virtue of the interim order dated 21.04.1997 passed in C.M.6038 of 1997, the petitioner was permitted to work as Reader subject to the result of Civil Writ Petition No.18289 of 1996, on which the petitioner continued till his superannuation. Civil Writ Petition No.18289 of 1996 filed by the petitioner and one Desh Pal Singh Rana has been withdrawn vide order dated 19.05.2009 in view of the order dated 06.05.1997, Annexure P-2, in the present petition. The petitioner has, thus, accepted his appointment as Officiating Reader on the basis of aforesaid order Annexure P-2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming his promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I and further promotions in the channel where the petitioner was earlier working as Superintendent Grade-II. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that under Note 4, appended to Rule 4.13 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.1, Part- 1,Chapter IV, the petitioner is entitled to the promotion in his parent cadre and he should not be made to suffer because of his officiating promotion out of his regular line. The petitioner, accordingly, claims that he should be given notional promotion as Superintendent Grade-I and be also considered for further promotion as Assistant Registrar in his original line as persons junior to him have been promoted as Assistant Registrars. Detailed reply has been filed by the High Court. It is clear and categoric stand of the respondent that the petitioner applied for the post of Reader where he was selected and appointed. The petitioner while working as Superintendent Grade-II took a decision to change his line of CWP No.2128 of 2005 : 3 : service, opted for Readership even when he knew his position in his parent cadre. Despite that he chooses to change the line and opted for the post of Reader. The respondents have also referred to Rule 9 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), which relate to the appointment of Readers. Rule 9 of the Rules, provides the mode of appointment to the post of Reader. Superintendent Grade-II is one of the feeding channels for the post of Readers. It is at this stage that an employee is entitled to change his line of promotion. The petitioner changed his line of promotion and instead of continuing in his original line, he opted for the Readership. This clearly establishes that the petitioner has abandoned the right and claim for promotion in his original line. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is only a temporary Reader as his appointment as Officiating Reader effect his further promotional chances for want of sufficient number of vacancies in the cadre of Readers. Mr.Sanjive Sharma, learned counsel for the High Court, on instructions, has stated that as many as 24 permanent vacancies of Readers are available. The Readers are to be appointed substantively on the basis of their seniority against available permanent vacancies. The petitioner has already superannuated on 28.02.2006 as Officiating Reader. It is also admitted position that the petitioner was entitled to and, in fact, has been drawing regular pay scale of the Reader along with emoluments attached to the post and, thus, there is no financial disadvantage to the petitioner even as a Reader. The petitioner has already withdrawn his challenge to the CWP No.2128 of 2005 : 4 : selection and has accepted officiating promotion as Reader in Civil Writ Petition No.18289 of 1996. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 21.05.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO