IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.247 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 10, 2011 Jagdish Lal ….Appellant Versus Chief Administrator, HUDA and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Report or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2009 passed by learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-appellant being junior to Ashok Kumar could not have been promoted as Driver from the post of Cleaner. The learned Single Judge has also found that the other person, namely, Prempal Singh, although junior to the appellant-writ petitioner, belong to Scheduled Caste and, therefore, on account of reservation, he was given promotion as Driver ahead of him. The only reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner is on the information obtained from the office of the Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division, HUDA on 24.8.2010 L.P.A. No.247 of 2010 -2- (Annexure P.9) under the Right to Information Act. According to learned counsel, Ashok Kumar was re-designated as Cleaner on 21.4.1999, whereas the appellant-writ petitioner was promoted earlier on 16.2.1999 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that Ashok Kumar was senior to the appellant-writ petitioner. On the basis of the aforementioned argument, notice of motion was issued and Mr.Sidharath Batra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Batra has stated that the information supplied by the office of the Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division, HUDA (Annexure P.9) has been found to be incorrect and explanation of the concerned officer has been called for. According to Mr. Batra, the correct date of re-designation of Ashok Kumar as Cleaner is 2.4.1998 and not 21.4.1999 and, therefore, the aforesaid Ashok Kumar could be taken as senior to the appellant-writ petitioner, who was re-designated as Cleaner on 10.2.1999. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is without any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 10, 2011 JUDGE satish