CWP Nos.3696, 14494, 15389, 16023, 16147, 3868 of 2009 and 9794 of 2010 Present: Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate Mr.Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. * * * Permod Kohli, J. The dispute in these petitions relates to promotion from the post of Supervisor to the post of Child Development Project Officer ( in short ‘CDPO’) in the department of Social Security and Women and Child Development, Punjab. In some of the writ petitions, the challenge is made to the ad hoc promotions given to the private respondents to the post of CDPO whereas in some of the writ petitions, the challenge is made against the order passed by the respondents reverting the petitioners from the posts of CDPO to Supervisor. It is however, not in dispute that all reversions have been stayed by passing an interlocutory orders by this Court from time to time in these writ petitions. The stand taken by the State is that the ad hoc promotions were made against the quota belonging to the direct recruits. Under the recruitment Rules governing the service in the cadre, 50% posts are required to be filled by direct recruitment through open market and 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The reversion was ordered as the ad hoc promotees were occupying the direct recruitment vacancies. It has been found even in the promotion orders of these ad hoc promottees, there is clear stipulation that their promotion is against direct recruits quota and as and when the direct recruitments are made, they will have to make way for them. During the pendency of these petitions, promotion quota vacancies have become available. However, it is stated on behalf of the State that earlier, seniority list was prepared treating the roster point as the seniority. However, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported as J.T.1996(2), SC, 727 and JT 1999(7) S.C. 153 and subsequent judgments of the Division Bench of this Court dated 2714 of 2000, the roster points cannot be treated as the seniority points and thus, on account of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.2714 of 2000, the seniority in the cadre of Supervisor is to be redrawn by revoking the CWP Nos.3696, 14494, 15389, 16023, 16147, 3868 of 2009 and 9794 of 2010 benefits of seniority in favour of such of the reserved category candidates who were given seniority on roster point. It is further stated by learned State counsel that the tentative seniority list has already been notified on 14.1.2011 inviting objections from the aggrieved persons and final seniority list is likely to be settled. In view of the above factual position, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- [i] State is directed to finalise the seniority list of Supervisor within a period of three months by taking into consideration the objections filed against tentative seniority list in accordance with the directions of this Court in CWP No.2714 of 2000 or any other direction as may be applicable. [ii] On finalization of the seniority, the available vacancies from promotional quota will be determined. Such of the Supervisors who were or are eligible and are holding posts of CDPO on ad hoc basis shall be considered for their regular/substantive promotion as CDPO against the available vacancies of promotional quota w.e.f. the date such vacancies accrued. [iii] While making promotions, the eligibility of the candidates, their seniority as prescribed under the rules shall be kept in mind and all promotions shall be made strictly in accordance with the rules invogue. The consequential order shall be passed within a period of one month thereafter. Present promotions will remain intact till final orders are passed. CWP No.3696 of 2009, In the said writ petition, the petitioners have apprehension that respondent No.7 may give adverse report to the writ petitioners for impleading him as party respondent in the writ petition. I hope and believe that respondent No.7 will not act in any bias manner while recording annual reports of the petitioners. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 31.01.2011 2 CWP Nos.3696, 14494, 15389, 16023, 16147, 3868 of 2009 and 9794 of 2010 sd 3