IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8331 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2010. Dr.Jugal Kishore .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.8571 of 1990 (O&M) Ramesh Chand .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : None for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.8331 and 8571 of 1990 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.8331 of 1990. C.W.P.No .8331 of 1990 (O&M) 2 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.2.1990 (Annexure P-2) whereby the private respondents, who were working as Homeopathic Physicians, have been granted the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 in order of seniority allegedly ignoring the petitioner who belongs to reserved category of Scheduled Castes. The controversy had arisen as a result of the upgradation of the posts of Homeopathic Physician as Incharge of the District Level Dispensary and their consequential promotions in the above-mentioned higher pay scales. The grievance of the petitioner was that the upgraded posts are different than the posts of Homeopathic Physicians and therefore, the reservation applies to the upgraded posts as well. The official respondents in their affidavit filed initially, controverted the petitioner's claim on the premise that the upgradation of the existing posts does not amount to creation of new posts against which the promotions are to be made by following the reservation policy. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the departmental official who is present in Court, states that during the pendency of this writ petition, the upgraded posts have been treated as promotional posts and consequential promotions have been made by filling up three promotional posts from reserved category. Though the petitioner could not be promoted at that time but later on he has also been promoted as such. In the light of the above mentioned subsequent events, in my considered view, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous for the C.W.P.No .8331 of 1990 (O&M) 3 reason that if the petitioner is still aggrieved at the action of the respondents in denying him the promotion against the upgraded posts retrospectively, it gives a new cause of action to him. With the liberty afore-stated, both these writ petitions are disposed of. Dasti. 28-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE