CWP No.16880 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 16880 of 1996 Date of Decision: 6 - 8 - 2010 Jai Karan and others ....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the impugned order dated 22.12.1995, Annexure P10, whereby respondents No.4 and 5, namely, Hawa Singh and Bhan Singh were promoted as Ziledar be quashed, as the petitioners have better claim being seniors to respondents No.4 and 5. Before the aforesaid prayer is considered, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case. Petitioners and respondents No.4 and 5 were appointed as CWP No.16880 of 1996 [2] Canal Patwaries in Sirsa Division falling under the jurisdiction of Hisar Circle. Admittedly, the petitioners are seniors to respondent No.4. So far as respondent No.5 is concerned, his initial appointment was in Bhiwani Circle. As per old rules prevailing in the department, the seniority was to be determined circle wise. Therefore, the petitioners cannot ask for comparison with respondent No.5 - Bhan Singh as his seniority was maintained in different circle i.e. Bhiwani Circle. So far as, the claim of the petitioners qua respondent No.4 - Hawa Singh is concerned, the Hisar Division was bifurcated into two circles and Sirsa Circle originated on 1.4.1977. Respondent No.4 – Hawa Singh at that time was posted at a place which fell under the jurisdiction of Sirsa Circle. He continued to remain there, whereas the petitioners to their benefit remained in Hisar Circle. A grievance has been made that in April, 1977 when Sirsa Circle was carved out, the official respondents had afforded no opportunity to the petitioners to opt for Sirsa Circle, therefore, respondent No.4 though being junior, but having been assigned to Sirsa Circle became senior to them. Though at the first instance, the Court may find merit in this argument but on minute examination, this argument is bound to fail. As stated earlier, Sirsa Circle was carved out on 1.4.1977. Respondent No.4 – Hawa Singh was promoted from Canal Patwari to Assistant Revenue Clerk in the year 1991. His promotion as Assistant Revenue Clerk was never challenged by the petitioners. Even no representation was made to show that the petitioners were aggrieved with regard to grant of promotion to respondent No.4. In the year 1995, respondent No.4 was promoted as Ziledar from the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk. It is at this stage that the petitioners contested the promotion of respondent No.4. By their own act CWP No.16880 of 1996 [3] and conduct, there was acquiescence on their part. Once the petitioners allowed him to steel march over them in the year 1991, it is too late in the year 1996 to say that respondent No.4 cannot be promoted as Ziledar. Mr.Mohunta has drawn my attention to Annexure P12 to show that in the year 1996, claim of Prithvi Singh, Canal Patwari was rejected on the ground that prior to June, 1991, no vacancy was available. A perusal of Annexure P12 makes it explicit clear that in Hisar Circle, there was no vacancy, whereas there was a vacancy in Sirsa Circle. Therefore, respondent No.4 – Hawa Singh was promoted. Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 6, 2010. JUDGE RC