IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11680 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 07, 2009 Karnail Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent i.e. State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Punjab Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh, to promote the petitioner to the post of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab w.e.f. 1.6.2009 when the post fell vacant. It has been brought out that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category CWP No.11680 of 2009 [2] and was appointed as Lecturer in Punjabi on 5.8.1976. The petitioner was promoted as Principal on 17.11.2004. Service record of the petitioner has been excellent throughout. Next promotional post from the post of Principal is Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, which is by way of selection. Departmental Promotion Committee for the purposes of considering the names for promotion to the post of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, met on 4.5.2009. It approved and recommended a panel of three persons for promotion including Smt. Roop Aulakh at Serial No.1 and petitioner, Karnail Singh, at Serial No.2. As a consequence of the recommendation of the Committee, Smt. Roop Aulakh joined on 15.5.2009. She retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2009. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the panel is still valid. The petitioner is required to be promoted to the post of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab w.e.f. 1.6.2009 in view of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 4.5.2009. The necessary orders are however not being passed. The date of superannuation of the petitioner is CWP No.11680 of 2009 [3] 30.9.2009. In view of the limited period of service, manifest injustice is being caused in view of the inaction on the part of the respondents in promoting the petitioner to the post of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. Reply has been filed in Court today which is taken on record. Following is the stand of the respondents:- “....... The meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 4-5-2009 at 3.30 pm under the chairmanship of the then Secretary Higher Education. The DPC recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion as DPI (Colleges) with effect from 1.6.2009. As per rule 28(1)(vii) of Rule of Business of Government of Punjab 1992, for filling up the post of the Head of the Department, the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is required to be obtained through the Department of Personnel. Therefore, the case has been sent to the Personnel Department vide ID 1/13/2008-5E1, dated 9-6- 2009, seeking the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister which is still awaited. Now, the Personnel Department has arranged a meeting in this regard on 10-9-2009, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary.” From the stand of the respondents, it transpires that the name of the petitioner has been recommended for promotion as Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab w.e.f. 1.6.2009. The approval, however, is required from the Chief Minister, Punjab, through the Department of Personnel. The case of the petitioner has been sent to Personnel Department vide Memo dated 9.6.2009 for seeking approval of the Chief Minister, Punjab. Meeting in this regard has been arranged for 10.9.2009 under the CWP No.11680 of 2009 [4] Chairmanship of the Chief Minister. Considering the stand of the respondent, this petition is disposed of. The respondent is directed to have final decision taken on the matter within a period of one week from today in view of the existing right of the petitioner to promotion. (AJAI LAMBA) September 07, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?