IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 702 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.1.2010. Ramesh Chand --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion to respondents no.1 and 2 only. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner joined service in Haryana Education Department as a Clerk on 12.4.1973, whereas respondent no.3 joined service in the department as a Clerk on 8.6.1973. In the seniority of the clerks petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1080, whereas respondent no.3 was placed at Sr. No. 1370. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant in August, 1993 vide order dated 24.8.1993 and the said respondent was promoted as Assistant in 1996. In the seniority list of Assistants also the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 235, whereas respondent no.3 figured at Sr. No. 324. Respondent no.3 was thereafter promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 18.1.2001. The petitioner represented against the promotion of respondent no.3, who is said to be junior to him. In the meantime another employee namely Prithvi Raj, who was also junior to petitioner in the seniority list came to be promoted as CWP. No. 702 of 2010 -2- Deputy Superintendent on 5.2.2007, whereas petitioner was promoted on 13.7.2007. Petitioner represented against the promotion of Prithvi Raj as well. Petitioner also made an application under RTI Act seeking necessary information. In response to the application of the petitioner, to one of the question i.e. Question no. 5 regarding promotion of Sh. Prithvi Raj. The relevant answer of question is noticed hereunder:- “ That the file of anti dated promotion is being submitted shortly. The order will be issued after code of conduct is over.” The petitioner has also served legal notice (Annexure P-13) in this regard. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite admission on the part of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have not passed any order till date. It is also contended that the vacancies on the promotional post i.e. Deputy Superintendent are also available in the department. According to the information received under RTI Act 82 posts of Deputy Superintendents are sanctioned, 50 posts of Dy. Supdts. Are filled in the State in which 20 posts of Superintendent are to be filled by way of promotion. 20 posts of Supdt. are lying vacant since 2008. It is, accordingly, contended that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has already served a legal notice (Annexure P-13), he would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in the light of the averments made in the legal notice and as per assurance extended to the petitioner in response to the querry under RTI Act. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for CWP. No. 702 of 2010 -3- promotion and take decision on the legal notice, referred to above within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. If, the petitioner is found entitled to promotion from the date persons junior to him were promoted, necessary orders be passed within a period of one month thereafter. However, in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 18.1.2010. lucky