HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance made by the petitioner is that order dated 19.11.2004, passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat, transferring the petitioner from Panipat to Kurukshetra, after his adjustment as Helper is wholly arbitrary and liable to be set aside. THE name of the petitioner in the aforementioned order figures at Sr. No. 27. THE order dated 9.4.2004, Annexure P-1, regularising the services of the petitioner along with others further shows that his services have been regularised on 9.4.2004 and his name figures at Sr. No. 45 of the list. THE seniority-list prepared by the respondents, which has been placed on record as Mark-A, also shows that the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 47. THE aforementioned seniority-list has been prepared on the basis of continuous length of service. It is evident from the column showing date of appointment that the petitioner was appointed on 1.2.1998, whereas the persons at Sr. Nos. 46, 45 and 44 were appointed in 1995. By no stretch of imagination, it could be argued that the petitioner could be considered senior to those whose names have been put at Sr. Nos. 1 to 46. THE basic premise taken in the petition that the respondents are resorting to a pick and choose policy is absolutely defeated by disclosure of date of appointment and the serial number in the seniority-list on that basis. THEre is no merit in the petition is dismissed.