IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1327 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2010 Bijender Singh Dahiya. -----Appellant Vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition of the appellant against promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in the Kurukshetra University. 2. The appellant and respondent No.3 were appointed as Junior Engineers, but in accordance with the merit determined by the Selection Committee, respondent No.3 was assigned higher merit and was, accordingly, ranked senior to the appellant in the year 1993. Thereafter, in the year 2009, the appellant as well as respondent No.3 were considered according to the relevant service rules and respondent No.3 was given promotion. 3. The appellant challenged promotion of respondent No.3 on the ground that the appellant being elder in age and both having been LPA No.1327 of 2009 appointed on same day, the appellant should have been treated to be senior and was also entitled to priority in promotion on the ground of having been given current duty charge. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that respondent No.3 being senior as per merit determined by the Selection Committee, which was never questioned by the appellant, promotion of respondent No.3 could not be held to be illegal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Contention which was raised before learned Single Judge has been repeated before us. We do not find any merit therein, as admittedly respondent No.3 remained senior to the appellant on the basis of ranking of merit prepared by the Selection Committee ever since 1993 i.e. for 16 years prior to the present selection. Except that the appellant claims to be elder to respondent No.3, no other factor showing higher merit of the appellant has been shown. Mere fact that the appellant held current duty charge, cannot be a ground to hold that the appellant was entitled to priority in promotion under the relevant rules. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 15, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2