CWP No.21246 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.21246 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 18, 2008 DILAWAR SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. PRESENT: MR.MANOHAR DADWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order Annexure P-2 and P-3, dated 28.9.2006 and 13.10.2006, whereby respondent No.7 was promoted to the post of Hoist Operator in Bhakhra Beas Management Board (for short 'BBMB') Talwara. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P-9), whereby his claim for promotion to the post of Hoist Operator has been rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 10.11.1994 and he joined his duties on 15.11.1994. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Sub Divisional Office (Mechanical Division), Gates and Gearing Sub Division, BBMB Talwara on 5.8.1999 and he was relieved by respondent No.5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.7 was appointed as Beldar on 4.7.1996 and thereafter his services were transferred with respondent No.6. It is submitted by the petitioner that his name was mentioned at S.No.91 in the CWP No.21246 of 2008 -2- seniority list whereas, the name of respondent No.7 was mentioned at S.No.100 and despite the fact that the petitioner was senior to respondent No.7, yet respondent No.7 has been promoted to the post of Hoist Operator over-looking the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.4456 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2008, with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. The legal notice has been decided vide the impugned order (Annexure P-9) whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner was senior to respondent No.7, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted as Hoist Operator in BBMB, Talwara and that the respondents have committed a grave illegality by promoting respondent No.7 to the said post despite the fact that he was junior to the petitioner. We have perused the impugned order (Annexure P-9) in detail and a perusal of the same shows that the petitioner was transferred from Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi vide letter dated 29.7.1999 and joined in the BBMB, Talwara as Beldar on 6.8.1999, whereas respondent No.7 Sanjay Kumar was transferred by the Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Shahpurkandi vide letter dated 23.10.2001. Before promoting Sanjay Kumar, Beldar as Hoist Operator in BBMB, Talwara willingness of all the Beldars were sought vide office letter dated 11.7.2005. However, no Beldar of Punjab State was willing to get his promotion as Hoist Operator in BBMB, as per information received from the field office of Irrigation Department, Punjab. The only application for consideration for the post of CWP No.21246 of 2008 -3- Hoist Operator in BBMB, Talwara was received from Sanjay Kumar, respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 was also eligible for the said post of Hoist Operator and his name was recommended to the Superintending Engineer, Jalandhar Drainage Circle, Jalandhar vide letter dated 28.9.2006. He had also been assisting the Hoist Operator and had 5 years' experience to his credit whereas, the petitioner was having experience of the work of watch and ward and did not have any knowledge or experience for the post of Hoist Operator. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the petitioner cannot claim appointment as Hoist Operator merely on the basis of his seniority. The petitioner neither had experience for the post of Hoist Operator nor fulfilled the requisite qualification. Apart from the above, the petitioner did not show his willingness to be considered for the post of Hoist Operator when the same was asked for from the Beldars working in BBMB. It was respondent No.7 only who had shown his willingness for the post in question. In view of the above, the competent authority has rightly promoted respondent No.7 to the post of Hoist Operator in BBMB as he had the requisite knowledge as well as experience for the post of Hoist Operator. The claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected vide the impugned order. Resultantly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 18, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA) Gulati JUDGE