In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.5650 of 2007 Date of decision: 30.9.2008 Rajiv Gupta .....Appellant versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. S. Dhillon, AAG. Punjab. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 to 5. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 12.3.2007 (P-3) passed by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala- respondent No.3, withdrawing promotion of the petitioner granted to him vide order dated 12.12.2006 from the post of Peon to that of Clerk and in turn reverting him to the post of Peon in the Water Supply Branch. In the impugned order two reasons have been mentioned that neither the seniority list was inspected while issuing promotion order on 12.12.2006 nor sanction was obtained from the Mayor of the Corporation as required by the resolution passed by the General House for promotion of the petitioner on 31.5.2006. On 23.9.2008, the matter was taken up for consideration. We have then observed in our order on the basis of the written statement that there was neither any mention of persons senior to the petitioner working as Peons nor it was disclosed as to whether they fulfilled the qualification CWP No.5650 of 2007 -2- which a Clerk was required to possess. The factum of obtaining sanction from Mayor was also not mentioned. It became necessary to peruse the record. We directed the respondent Municipal Corporation, Patiala to produce the record regarding seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis others in the cadre of Peon and various other resolutions passed in connection with the case. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced before us seniority list of Peons. It has been pointed out that Rajesh Kumar whose name figures at Sr. No.37 and who is qualified as well could not be considered for promotion as disciplinary proceedings for inflicting punishment of major penalty has been pending against him. Thereafter one Vinod Kumar, whose name figures at Sr. No.39 has unfortunately expired. The other three persons namely Bhupinder Pal, Tinku Babu and RamPal are not eligible. However Sh. Mahesh Kumar and the petitioner Rajiv Kumar, the persons at Sr. Nos.43 and 44 are eligible for consideration and process of promotion has already been initiated which is likely to be completed within a period of two months. In view of the above, we refrain ourselves from quashing order dated 12.3.2007 because we have found from the seniority list, that persons senior to the petitioner have not been promoted to the post of Clerk who are eligible having the qualification of matriculation. The process of promotion to the post of Clerk from that of Peons has already been undertaken by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the case of the petitioner would also be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk as two posts of Clerks are sought to be filled by promotion from amongst the Peon. CWP No.5650 of 2007 -3- In view of the above the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent shall be bound by the aforementioned statement and the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion within a period of two months. If the petitioner is found suitable then he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 30.9.2008 ( M. M. Kumar ) A.D Judge ( Jora Singh ) Judge