HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7991 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2011 **** Satpal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. BR Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only, at this stage. On the asking, Mr. JS Puri, learned Addl. AG Punjab accepts notice on their behalf. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their reply (ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage. (2). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P7) passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2010 passed in CWP No.12950 of 2005 (Sat Pal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.) whereby the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer has been rejected. CWP NO.7991 of 2011.doc - 2 – (3). The above-mentioned previous writ petition was also filed by the petitioner for the same relief and it was disposed of with a direction that the claim of the petitioner be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion from amongst the AMI- qualified Junior Engineers. The self-speaking order dated 18.10.2010 passed pursuant thereto, reveals that when the DPC met on 03.12.2001, the petitioner’s claim could not be considered as he had not passed his examination. So far as his claim alleging that his junior Raghbir Singh has been promoted was also turned down after observing that both of them belong to different categories. (4). It is now urged on behalf of the petitioner that instead of Raghbir Singh, the petitioner had in fact pointed that Sarvshri Harmohinder Singh Arora, Madan Gopal Sharma, Satish Kumar Khanna and Jaspal Bansal are his juniors belonging to the same category but their claim had already been considered and accepted by the DPC. It is urged that the particulars of the above- named juniors were duly mentioned in the representation dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P6) submitted by the petitioner in the light of the order CWP NO.7991 of 2011.doc - 3 – dated 27.04.2010 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. (5). Though the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department has elaborately dealt with the case of the petitioner vide the impugned order but I find that the petitioner’s claim, with specific reference to the above-named officials, has not been dealt with or explained. (6). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Irrigation Department to consider the petitioner’s vis-à-vis Harmohinder Singh Arora, Madan Gopal Sharma, Satish Kumar Khanna and Jaspal Bansal also and pass a supplementary self-speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 05.05.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge CWP NO.7991 of 2011.doc - 4 –