-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 748 of 2011 (O & M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 14, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 748 of 2011 (O & M). Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another ... Appellants VERSUS Gurmail Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation') is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 Gurmail -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 748 of 2011 (O & M). Singh for a declaration to the effect that the order dated 7.10.2005 vide which the plaintiff-respondent was not considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector from the date of his immediate juniors were promoted was illegal, void, unconstitutional and against the service rules with a consequential relief of permanent injunction was decreed and the plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector with effect from the date his juniors had been promoted. After hearing the learned counsel for the Corporation and going through the records of the case, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in Second appeal in the well-reasoned judgment of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff-respondent had joined the Corporation as Conductor with effect from 14.11.1972. Admittedly, persons junior to the plaintiff-respondent had been promoted to the post of Sub Inspector and against that order the plaintiff-respondent submitted a representation. Acting on the representation of the plaintiff-respondent, the Corporation reverted those persons who were juniors to the plaintiff and had been promoted as Sub Inspectors. Those persons filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court, which was allowed. The Corporation thereafter again promoted those persons as Sub Inspectors, however, by ignoring the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate Court observed that the relief sought by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 did not lie in the reversion of other Sub Inspectors who were junior to the plaintiff, but in promotion of -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 748 of 2011 (O & M). the petitioner to the said post from the date when his juniors had been promoted. This finding of the lower appellate Court is impeccable and in consonance with the doctrine that no one in service should be discriminated. The lower appellate Court rightly allowed the relief claimed by the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 14, 2011. JUDGE ak