IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 5537 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.3.2010. Randhir Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. P.K. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. The petitioner is a scheduled caste candidate and was appointed as a Helper-Mechanic on daily wage basis in Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh on 17.12.1991. He worked in the said office up to 8.4.1993. Thereafter, he was transferred to Haryana Roadways, Kaithal. The services of the petitioner were regularized under the State Govt. policy w.e.f. 1.2.1996. It is stated that in the year 2001 the State Govt. issued a tentative seniority list of Helpers-Mechanics, wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 25, whereas the respondents no.5 to 7 were shown at Sr. Nos. 26, 27 and 28 respectively. It is also admitted case of the petitioner that the respondents no.5 to 7 were promoted as Assistant Fitters on 21.9.2000 and 9.10.2002. However the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 4.8.2004. This petition has been filed seeking a direction for fixation of the seniority of the petitioner in the promotional cadre over and above the private respondents. CWP. No. 5537 of 2010 -2- It is admitted case of the petitioner that the private respondents were promoted in the year 2000 and 2002 i.e almost 8 to 10 years from today. The promotions of the private respondents was never challenged by the petitioner at any stage. Petitioner was promoted in the year 2004. Even at that stage he did not challenge the seniority position of the private respondents. Since the private respondents were promoted earlier, they have gained seniority on the promotional post. They have definitely more length of service on the promotional post. Under the given circumstances, the seniority of the private respondents on the promotional cadre cannot be disturbed after such a long period. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 29.3.2010. lucky