C.W.P. No.3335 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3335 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 24.2.2011 Abhey Ram PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri J.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays that the order dated 17.9.2009 by which his revision has been rejected, be quashed and the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner from the date of his entitlement along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner pleads that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste and as per the seniority list of Excise Inspectors on 1.1.2003, his name figures at Sr.No.24. The respondents were expected to grant promotion on the promotional post to the Scheduled Caste categories in view of the 85th amendment of the Constitution of India which provides that nothing shall prevent the State from making any provision for C.W.P. No.3335 of 2011 -2- reservation in the matters of promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes. He thus contends that the respondents are under an obligation to formulate such a policy to grant accelerated promotion to the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner stands promoted along other eligible officers on 13.12.2010, but he pleads that he should be granted accelerated promotion and seniority under the reservation policy instructions dated 16.3.2006. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petition is misplaced. The petitioner is lacking in material particulars, as it does not demonstrate as to how the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner by way of accelerated promotion. The respondents have already formulated a policy and whether promotion is to be granted or whether a post exists or not, is to be assessed by them and the courts cannot substitute their opinion in such administrative matters, unless the petitioner shows violation of any right that has accrued in his favour. There is thus no ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) February 24, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO