LPA No. 70 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 70 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 Sharda ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Gurinderpal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 22.9.2009, whereby dismissing the writ petition. LPA No. 70 of 2010 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Constable under BC-A category. Further promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable was on the basis of B-1 test. The aforesaid test was conducted by the department in the year 2008, but the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to appear in the said test, whereas, all other similarly situated, were sent a specific intimation to appear in the test. In order to challenge the aforesaid act, the petitioner filed writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to consider the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, claim of the petitioner after consideration, was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 27.8.2008. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.8.2008, CWP No.18442 of 2008 was filed, which was dismissed on 22.9.2009. Present appeal has been filed to impugn the order dated 22.9.2009 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that B-1 test was held on 5.4.2008. The petitioner was never informed about B-1 test, which was held on 5.4.2008. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the appellant was posted as Computer Operator, hence she was having full knowledge about the conduct of the B- 1 test. She could have enquired from the office where she was working. 6. Undisputedly, no specific intimation was sent to the appellant to appear in B-1 test, which was to be held on 5.4.2008. That being so, merely because the petitioner was posted as Computer Operator in the department, would have knowledge pertaining to conduct of B-1 test, would LPA No. 70 of 2010 3 not absolve the department to send intimation informing the petitioner about the B-1 test, which was to be held on 5.4.2008. 7. In view of the above, writ petition deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. Respondents are directed to permit the appellant to appear in next B-1 test. 8. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) 24.02.2010 Judge sk.