CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6098 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 11, 2009 Subhash Chander Mehta .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, a teacher, has raised an issue of his seniority vis-a-vis respondent Nos.5 and 6 with further grievance that the tentative seniority list of HES-II (Principal only) be quashed. He has also prayed for a direction that his name be placed senior to the respondents herein. The petitioner joined as Math Master on adhoc basis on 17.8.1979. His service were regularised as Math Master with effect CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6098 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: from 16.9.1982. Respondent No.5, Sudesh Madan, as per the averment, joined service as English Mistress on 28.12.1982. During April May, 1985, the Department of Secondary Education, Haryana, invited applications from Masters/Mistresses working in the Government Middle/High Schools for promotion to the post of Lecturer in English. The petitioner at that time was working as a Math Master and his case for promotion to the post of Lecturer was sent through the Head Master of the School at Gohana where he was then working. As per the petitioner, District Education Officer was negligent in not referring the case of the petitioner to the Department in time and accordingly his case was sent only on 30.5.1985. Respondent No.5 was promoted as Lecturer on 31.5.1985. Subsequently, the petitioner was also promoted on 11.7.1985. Respondent No.6, however, was promoted on 28.11.1985. Subsequently, respondent No.5 was promoted as Principal on 9.6.1997. A provisional seniority list was subsequently circulated where the name of the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.90 and that of proforma respondent No.6 at No.115. In the year 2000, another seniority list was prepared where the names of the petitioner and respondent No.6 were included at Sr.Nos.437-C and 498-B respectively. The petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.6. Petitioner and Respondent No.6 were promoted to the post of Principal on 8.9.2000. Subsequently, draft seniority list of Principals has been issued on 25.7.2005. The name of respondent No.6 is shown at two places at Sr.Nos.232 and 311, whereas respondent No.5 is shown at CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6098 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: seniority list No.84. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the seniority list. The petitioner represented and, thus, has been shown at seniority list No.268A. He has accordingly prayed that he is senior to proforma respondent No.6. He also claims seniority over respondent No.5 by virtue of his date of appointment. The petitioner had earlier challenged this seniority list by filing CWP No.19810 of 2006, which was disposed of on 14.12.2006 to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a period of two months. An order pursuant thereto was passed by which Deputy D.E.Os. and B.E.Os. adjusting the transfer/posting and the current duty charge. The petitioner again filed a representation against the same. He himself has mentioned that the official respondents have conceded that name of respondent No.6 has wrongly been entered at Sr.No.232 of the seniority list and it has been struck off but still has filed this petition. Notice of motion was issued. Reply by official respondents has been filed. It is disclosed in the reply that name of respondent No.6 was wrongly shown at two places in the seniority list at Sr.Nos.232 and 311. He has now been assigned seniority at Sr.No.311 and not at Sr.No.232. The petitioner has been assigned seniority at Sr.No.268-A and accordingly has been placed senior to respondent No.6. It is, therefore, not understood as to what grievance the petitioner is still carrying? Despite this categoric and clear stand taken by the official respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ. So far as seniority of respondent No.5 is concerned, it is clearly maintained that she was promoted as Lecturer on 31.5.1985, whereas the petitioner was promoted on 11.7.1985. Thus, in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6098 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: cadre of Lecturer the petitioner became junior to respondent No.5. Again, respondent No.5 was promoted as Principal on 9.6.1997, whereas the petitioner and respondent No.6 were so promoted on 8.9.2000. They both are, thus, junior to respondent No.5. The grievance raised by the petitioner about the seniority vis-a-vis respondent No.5 is highly belated. The petitioner acquiesced with the order of promotion and did not raise any challenge thereto which was issued in the year 1985. The petitioner also kept quiet when respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Principal in the year 1997. After 10 years of promotion to the post of Principal and nearly after 22 years of promotion of respondent No.5 as Lecturer, the petitioner has now raked up the dispute of his seniority. At this belated stage, the petitioner can not be heard to challenge the seniority of respondent No.5. The petition, for this part of the relief, suffers from delay and laches. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. August 11,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE