IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 34 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.1.2010. Jagbir Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the judgement dated 7.2.2006 which was heavily relied upon by the respondents in the impugned order. I have perused the judgement. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed in Hisar Range. He was transferred to Rohtak Range vide order dated 7.5.2001 at his own request. He was confirmed as Sub Inspector w.e.f. 31.01.2001 while posted in Rohtak Range. His name was recommended by the I.G.P, Rohtak Range for admission to list 'F'. One SI Sube Singh, who was working in Hisar Range, his name was also recommended by the I.G.P., Hisar Range for the post of Inspector. The claim of the petitioner is that he is senior to Sube Singh. His claim has been rejected on the ground that the seniority is to be maintained at range level and the petitioner is from Rohtak Range, whereas SI Sube Singh is from Hisar Range. CWP. No. 34 of 2010 -2- Since the seniority of the petitioner and SI Sube Singh are maintained in different Ranges the claim of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date Sube Singh was promoted on the basis of his alleged seniority, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was senior in Hisar Range, he should be considered senior to Sube Singh. This contention is totally baseless. Once the petitioner himself sought transfer from Hisar Range, he cannot claim seniority in Hisar Range. His seniority has been rightly maintained at Rohtak Range and thus he cannot claim parity with Sube Singh, who belongs to different range. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 11.1.2010. lucky