IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2828 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011. Avtar Singh Aheer. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Canara Bank and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.7737-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal is, hereby, condoned. CM stands disposed. CM No.7738-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in the court fee. The delay in making good the deficiency in court fee is condoned. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in the court fee. CM stands disposed. RSA No.2828 of 2011 RSA No.2828 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jalandhar vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed suit for declaration that letter dated 17.10.1994 issued by competent authority of respondent no.1- Bank is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff with relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay `2,50,000/- with damages of `5,00,000/- i.e. total `7,50,000/-. It has been contended that he was eligible to be promoted as Special Assistant and however, promotion was illegally denied to him whereas, his juniors were promoted. Suit of plaintiff was contested by respondents-defendants by taking the plea that he was duly considered for promotion and however, as he could not secure the requisite bench mark for promotion and hence, he was not promoted and that later on when he reached the requisite bench mark, he was promoted after interview in the year 1998. Suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by 2 RSA No.2828 of 2011 learned trial Court. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar. Admittedly, every time the case of appellant-plaintiff was considered for promotion and however, he failed to pass the interview. Specific plea has been taken by respondents-defendants that he secured 116.25 marks against cut-off of 129.5 marks at the time of selection for promotion in the year 1995. Further in the year 1996, he secured 132.43 marks against cut-off of 152.75 marks. In the year 1997 all the candidates who were within the rank of 74th were promoted and however, the rank of plaintiff was 77th. He was promoted in the year 1998 when he secured 12fth rank within cut-off rank of 58. These facts have not been disputed by present appellant-plaintiff. It is not the case that his case was not considered for promotion at all. His case was duly considered for promotion and however, as he was not found fit to be promoted, his juniors were promoted. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 3 RSA No.2828 of 2011 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 15, 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 4