IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12661 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: September 20, 2011 Laxman Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS HC Devinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In the year 1991, the petitioner had approached this Court for quashing the order Annexure P-5, whereby respondent Nos.1 & 2 were promoted as Assistant Sub Inspectors without considering the claim of the petitioner, who was senior to them. The petitioner has, accordingly, sought direction for respondent No.4 & 5 to consider his claim and promote him to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from the date his juniors were so promoted. The petitioner has further prayed for grant of all consequential benefits. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 16.2.1963 and was promoted as Head Constable on 20.10.1975 and confirmed as such on 1.2.1983. Respondent No.1-Devinder Singh was enrolled Civil Writ Petition No.12661 of 1991 -2- in the Department of Police on 4.1.1973 and promoted as Head Constable on 26.11.1979 and had not been confirmed at the time of filing the petition. Similarly, respondent No.2-Jai Parkash having been enrolled on 8.1.1972, was promoted as Head Constable on 10.2.1982. The petitioner and respondent Nos.1 & 2 were working on the clerical side. The petitioner was senior to respondent Nos.1 & 2 and had performed well with no adverse report or remarks against him. The petitioner approached respondent Nos.3 & 4 through a representation dated 3.1.1991 with a request that he may be promoted against one of the vacancy that would occur as a result of retirement of one Rajinder Singh. The said representation was rejected by respondent No.4 on 21.1.1991 on the ground that petitioner-Laxman Singh, Head Constable, had no business to enter into unnecessary correspondence by requesting for his promotion on retirement of any person. It was also observed that he had neither been ignored for promotion nor his juniors had been so promoted. After rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner, the claim of respondent Nos.1 & 2 for promotion as Sub Inspector was considered and they were promoted on 4.3.1991. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In the reply, it is disclosed that the petitioner has made misleading statement and has concealed material facts. It is stated that the petitioner was confirmed as Head Constable on 1.2.1983, whereas respondent No.1 was confirmed as Head Constable on 26.11.1981 and respondent No.2 was confirmed as Head Constable on 10.2.1982. The seniority as such was required to be determined Civil Writ Petition No.12661 of 1991 -3- on the basis of confirmation. The petitioner has not raised any challenge to the action of the official respondents in confirming respondent Nos.1 & 2 from the dates as noted above. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim to be senior to respondent Nos.1 & 2 and accordingly, would not have much claim for consideration of promotion when they were considered and promoted as Head Constable. The petitioner probably has retired from service by now. With the efflux of time, the relief claimed in the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE