CWP No.2823 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2823 of 1992 Date of Decision: 28.4.2010 Miss Santokh Kaur ……Petitioner VERSUS The Punjab Mandi Board and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. In the present petition, order impugned is dated 6.2.1992 (Annexure P-10), by which approval for promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Accountant in Marketing Committee, Malaudh, District Ludhiana was declined on the ground, there is no vacant post of Accountant, available at Marketing Committee, Malaudh. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was appointed on 20.5.1972 as Clerk in Market Committee, Phillaur. Petitioner was promoted as Market Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector CWP No.2823 of 1992 -2- vide order dated 21.4.1975 and immediately thereafter, petitioner was transferred to the Market Committee, Malaudh by exercising power under Section 20(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Petitioner remained posted on the post of Market Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector in the Market Committee, Malaudh after her transfer. Petitioner was allowed to appear in the departmental examination for promotion on the post of Accountant. As per the petitioner, she passed the departmental examination for the promotion on the post of Accountant. Consequently, petitioner was directed to be promoted on the post of Accountant vide order dated 18.7.1991. Her case of promotion was forwarded to Punjab Mandi Board for approval, however, approval was declined vide impugned order dated 6.2.1992. Hence, the petition. 3. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Advocate had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and also moved an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for modification of the ex-parte order dated 28.2.1992. Record further reveals that no written statement has been filed by the respondents despite of the fact that petition is pending since 1992. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Hence, I decided to proceed ex-parte against the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention on a copy of Resolution No.3 dated 18.7.1991 passed by the Market Committee, Malaudh, Ludhiana i.e. Annexure P-7. Perusal of Annexure P-7 reveals that Sh. Amolak Rattan Singh, Senior Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector was offered post of an Accountant on CWP No.2823 of 1992 -3- promotion, however, he declined to accept the promotional post. Hence, promotional post of an Accountant remained vacant. Thereafter, petitioner was found suitable for the promotion to the post of Accountant after the departmental examination. Petitioner was given promotion vide Resolution dated 18.7.1991 on the post of Accountant which remained vacant due to non-acceptance of the same by Mr. Amolak Rattan Singh. 5. In view of Annexure P-7, it can very well be said that there was vacant post of Accountant in Market Committee Malaudh. Annexure P-10 dated 6.2.1992, by which it is said that there is no vacant post of Accountant at Market Committee, Malaudh, is wrong. 6. In view of the above, I have no other option except to allow the writ petition. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 6.2.1992 (Annexure P-10) is quashed. 7. Let Punjab Mandi Board pass fresh order on the recommendation granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Accountant. The same exercise can be completed by the Punjab Mandi Board within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( ALOK SINGH ) 28th April, 2010 JUDGE ashish