IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 7777 of 2011 Date of Decision: 3.5.2011. Vinod Kumar Bansal --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3 only. Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner is working as a Senior Assistant in the office of S.D.M., Bathinda. He was initially appointed as a Clerk. Promotion from the post of Clerk as well as from the post of Steno-typist is to the post of Assistant now re-designated as Senior Assistant. Under the rule no specific ratio was fixed. Respondent no.3 vide his order dated 24.6.1985 (Annexure P-1) fixed a ratio of 14:1 amongst the Clerks and Steno-typists working in the office of respondent no.3 for promotion as Assistant. On the basis of the aforesaid ratio, private respondents were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. It seems that this ratio was disputed by a number of employees and writ petitions including CWP Nos. 10662 of 2000 and 12275 of 2006 were filed in this Court challenging the ratio. Pending disposal of these writ CWP. No. 7777 of 2011 -2- petitions, the matter was examined at the Govt. level. The Govt. decided to do away with the ratio and the D.C., Bathinda suggested joint seniority list of Clerks and Steno-typists for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant vide his order dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure P-2). It seems that the suggestions of the D.C., Bathinda were considered by the Revenue & Rehabilitation & Disaster Management Minister, Punjab on 17.2.2010, who passed the following order:- “ The orders issued vide this letter are hereby stayed immediately and the whole position of this case be brought in my notice.” This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. The fixation of ratio in absence of any statutory rule is again a prerogative of the employer, even though, the D.C., Bathinda made suggestions, however, the Minister concerned, who performs the functions of the Govt. is seized of the matter and he has stayed implementation of the suggestions of D.C., Bathinda. I do not find that action of the Minister can be called in question in the present writ petition, however, one thing is important that the order by the Minister was passed on 17.2.2010 but no final decision has been taken thereon till date. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Govt. to take final decision on the suggestions/recommendations of the D.C., Bathinda (Annexure P-2). It would be appreciated and prudent, if, the decision is taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 3.5.2011. lucky