Satnam Singh Surveyor vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

The petitioner in the present writ petition is asking for setting aside of order dated 28.01.2003, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and having more than five years experience as Surveyor and continuously worked as Work-Charge Surveyor from 01.01.1993 and was regularized w.e.f. 05.10.2000. Therefore, his work charge service should be counted for the requirement of five years experience. And that the impugned order dated 28.01.2003 is contrary to the applicable rules. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that name of the petitioner was at serial No.15 in the seniority list and the seniors to the petitioner were still awaiting promotion. He further contends that no person junior to the petitioner had been promoted. He, therefore, prays that present writ petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner was at serial No.15 in the seniority list attached along with the written statement as Annexure R-2/1. Further as per the written statement, no junior to the petitioner was promoted and the seniors to the petitioner were yet to be promoted. The petitioner did not fall in the category of promotional quota meant for the surveyors as senior employees (Surveyors) and better qualified employees were available for promotion. Further, the petitioner was not having five years of regular service at his credit, whereas, other employees, who had more than five years of service, were considered. It is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him was promoted or considered.

As per the response of the State, no person junior to the petitioner was promoted and impugned order dated 23.01.2003 is self-speaking, wherein, after considering the Rules applicable to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner for was rejected.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.