' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. --- Through the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the impugned notification dated 12.06.2014, issued by respondent No, 2 with the approval of respondent No, 1, as illegal, and without lawful justification.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Store Keeper BPS-11 vide order dated 21.09.2007; that name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No, 1 in seniority list duly prepared after observing all the codal formalities. As per criterion prescribed in the Cadre Scheme, the petitioner and respondent No, 3 were granted BPS-14 as Senior Store Keepers. However, the criterion mentioned for promotion to the post of Assistant Store Officer BPS-16 is as follow:-
(i) Five years service as Senior Storekeeper.
(ii) Ten years experience in BPS-11, seniority-cum-fitness.
3. Allegedly, in violation of the criterion prescribed in the Cadre Scheme, a revised criterion was made in 2012 which is reproduced below:--- "Graduate with Five years experience, Or ' Intermediate with 10 years experience, Or ' Matriculate with 15 years experience".
' On the said criterion, respondent No, 3 was promoted as Assistant Store Officer (BPS-16). The petitioner filed Departmental representation but the same has yet not decided, finding no other way the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 as Store Keeper and placed at Sr.No, 1 in seniority list. But in the year 2012 criterion for promotion was changed due to which his seniority was disturbed. The criterion introduced in 2012 is violation of earlier criterion, therefore , the promotion awarded to respondent No, 3 be declared as illegal and without lawful justification.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No, 3 has submitted comments in the Court, which were taken on record, office is directed to number the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner on accepting copy of comments has shown his willingness to argue the case.
6. Learned counsel for respondents has drawn my attention towards the aspect that in the seniority list the petitioner though has been placed at Sr. No, 1 but his qualification cited therein is matriculation. The petitioner has not challenged the criterion for promotion introduced in 2012.
Therefore, the petitioner has to wait for sufficient period as prescribed for promotion by the present criterion. At this verge, the petitioner is not entitled for relief claimed.
7. Argument heard and record perused.
8. The arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents, fully supported by documentary evidence. Under the promotion criterion settled for further promotion, required experience is fifteen year, which is lacking on part of the petitioner. Thus the instant Writ Petition has no merit and is therefore, dismissed.