IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15017 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st February, 2011. Rupbir Singh & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh has, vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2008 [Annexure P-10] purported to be a speaking order, granted retrospective promotion to respondent No. 4 as Auction Recorder w.e.f. 29.06.1982 and has made him senior to the petitioners who were appointed as Auction Recorders by direct recruitment on 15.09.1982. It may be noticed that respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Kanda Man in the year 1981 and was later on promoted as Auction Recorder on 04.03.1991. The impugned order does not spell out as to why the cut off date of 29.06.1982 has been fixed and how respondent No. 4 was entitled for promotion on that day? Similarly, the impugned order fails to explain as to whether or not the posts of Auction Recorders could be filled in 100% by promotion only even though such a decision was apparently taken on 11.11.1983 only, i.e., after the appointment of the petitioners. Similarly, the impugned order does not disclose the eligibility conditions for promotion from Kanda Man to the post of Auction Recorder or what were the reasons to grant retrospective promotion to respondent No. 4 at this belated stage? Instead of searching answer to these questions out of the scant material on record, I treat these issues as sufficient reasons to set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2008 [Annexure P-10] and remit the matter to the Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh to decide the claim of respondent No. 4 afresh and after hearing all concerned and by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. February 21, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE