IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19096 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 15, 2010 HAKAM SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. HC Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Director, State Transport, Punjab, permitting respondent No.3 to join duty before expiry of 5 years. 2. It has been pleaded that petitioner No.1 has been serving as Station Supervisor (Grade-I) and petitioner No.2 has been serving as Station Supervisor, in the Transport Department. The next promotional post would be Traffic Manager. Sukhdeep Singh (respondent No.3) who, admittedly, is senior to the petitioners, applied for 5 years leave from 15.3.2010 to 14.3.2015, which was sanctioned vide order dated 8.3.2010 Civil Writ Petition No.19096 of 2010 2 (Annexure P-6). 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if respondent No.3 had continued on leave, the petitioners would have been considered for promotion to the post of Traffic Manager. Respondent No.3, however, got his leave cancelled prematurely, just after 5 months, which has been allowed to be cancelled/withdrawn vide impugned order dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-8). This has adversely affected the rights of the petitioners to promotion to the post of Traffic Manager. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Grant of leave to a third person or withdrawal or cancellation of the leave cannot be a ground for the petitioners to claim consideration for promotion. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has been shown as senior in the seniority list as compared to the petitioners. In such circumstances, I do not find that the petitioners are vested with any right to challenge the cancellation of leave, merely because it might affect promotional prospects of the petitioners. 6. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 7. The petition is dismissed in limine. December 15, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?