CWP No. 8907 of 1988 of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8907 of 1988 of Date of Decision: July 07, 2010 Ajay Kumar (since deceased) now represented through his LRs ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the promotion of respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his claim only with regard to respondent No.3 since, as per the written statement, respondent No.4 was a Scheduled Caste candidate. The claim of the petitioner was that two posts of Superintendent Grade-II were created by order dated 23.9.1982 in the office of respondent No.2. It is further averred that even though there were no statutory rules of the department yet these two posts were apportioned between the Assistants and CWP No. 8907 of 1988 of 2 Stenographers. As per the petitioner he was the senior most Assistant and further that the respondent No.3 did not have the requisite experience and, therefore, he should have been promoted to the said post. In the written statement it has been pleaded that one Balbir Chand had represented against the seniority and on his representation being accepted after notice to the petitioner, he was declared senior to the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not the senior most and hence the petition was not maintainable. Apart from this it cannot be lost sight of that even if respondent No.3 was not eligible from the quota of Stenographers it could only be a Stenographer who could challenge the promotion since one person from the quota of the Assistants viz. respondent No.4 had been promoted. As regards respondent No.4, as per the written statement he had to be promoted over and above the petitioner since he was from the reserved category and as per the roster point the said post had to go to a Scheduled Caste candidate. No replication has been filed. Consequently it has to be held that the petitioner was not senior most Assistant and also that in any case even if respondent No.3 had been wrongly promoted, the same could have been open to challenge by some body from that cadre,viz. the Stenographer. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 07, 2010 sunita