IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11072 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 6, 2009 SUB NSPECTOR KULDIP SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. APS Shergill, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11072 of 2009 (Sub Inspector Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 11087 of 2009 (Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others) and 11104 of 2009 (Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and facts are involved. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are promotees. It has been pleaded that 25% of the posts of Civil Writ Petition No. 11072 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Assistant Sub Inspectors were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, however, the respondents, in an arbitrary manner, have exceeded the quota and recruited Assistant Sub Inspectors by way of direct recruitment, which has frustrated the rights of the petitioners, who are promotees and were instead required to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspectors. After completion of the probation period of the petitioners, the petitioners were not confirmed immediately thereafter, whereas in the case of direct recruits, they were confirmed immediately on completion of their period of probation, thereby again frustrating the rights of the petitioners for confirmation to the promotional posts. It has been contended that persons junior to the petitioners have already been promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police, whereas the petitioners continue to serve as Inspectors/Deputy Superintendents of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has pointed out that this Court had directed the respondents to finalise the seniority list, after taking into account various aspects. The needful was not done on account of which COCP 1672 of 2008 in CWP 2153 of 2008 (Inspector Krishan Kumar and others v. D.C. Gupta and others) is pending adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that these petitions be dismissed as withdrawn as the respondents might be in the process of finalising the inter-se seniority list. The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, however, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if their rights are violated Civil Writ Petition No. 11072 of 2009 (O&M) 3 and the petitioners are not given their due, in accordance with their seniority. August 6, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?