CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10737 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2010 Anil Kumar .....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. Y. P. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3,4, 6 & 7. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the combined gradation list issued for head of the Department of Engineering and non-Engineering cadre, the petitioner, who is from Engineering Cadre, has filed this writ petition to challenge the said gradation list. The petitioner would aver that two cadres, namely, engineering and non-engineering having separate seniority list have now been combined to issue a common gradation list, though tentatively, which is not legally permissible. These cadres, as per the petitioner, continue to be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10737 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: separate cadres and have not been merged so far. As per the petitioner, his name was at No.9 of the gradation list of HOD in engineering cadre. A memo dated 25.11.2008 has been issued for recruitment to the post of Principal on transfer basis, for which the petitioner applied. Due to amendment of the gradation list merging the engineering and non engineering cadre, the name of the petitioner has now slipped from No.9 to No.26. The petitioner, thus, would challenge the same primarily on the ground that combined gradation list, even though tentative, can not be issued, till both the cadres are merged. In the reply filed, the above factual position is not much disputed. The plea in the written statement is that it is only a tentative seniority list, which is issued, against which the petitioner has also represented and which is under consideration. Respondents maintained that it is yet to be finalised. The respondents would, thus, urge that the writ petition is premature. Besides this, the respondents have tried to justify the action by giving reasons for merging engineering and non engineering cadre and has pointed out that the Government has decided to merge the cadres. The respondent-State has, thus, given a justification and desirability of removing the categories of engineering and non-engineering polytechnics and thus to treat all cadres equal. As a matter of fact, no decision has been taken to merge both the cadres and it is only a proposal. No doubt, the Government may be competent to merge two cadres, especially in view of the justification as offered, but so long as the cadres are not merged and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10737 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: remain separate, the action to issue a common seniority list, though tentative, would not be legally proper and correct course. Only appropriate course for the respondent-State is first to merge the cadre and then take further action to have a common seniority list. The prayer made by the petitioner is justified when he urges that seniority list can not be finalised till the cadres are merged. The stand of the State also is that no promotion has been proposed on the basis of tentative seniority list. Obviously, no promotion on the basis of tentative seniority list can be made, till both the cadres are merged. Any promotion made, would not be legally sustainable. It can not really be appreciated as to why the respondent-Government is insisting on circulating the tentative seniority list without merging the cadre, when the entire exercise would be futile. Accordingly, the prayer made in the writ petition is found meritorious. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to finalise any seniority list jointly issued for engineering and non-engineering cadre till the decision to merge these cadres is first taken. The action of the State in issuing tentative seniority list and in inviting objection to the tentative seniority list is not justified. Such action can be taken only after merger of the cadre. The respondent-State is, thus, required to be restrained from going ahead with finalising the seniority list and would take further action only after first taking decision in regard to merger of the cadres. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. August 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE