CWP No.9229 of 1987 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9229 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2011 Tirath Singh, Care-taker (now Auction Recorder), Market Committee, Jagraon, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana. ... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board through its Chairman, SCO No.149-152, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. PKS Gill, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.6 and 7. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The grievance of the petitioner is the petitioner, who was a Caretaker in the respondent-Board was denied promotion to the next higher post as Auction Recorder and instead fresh appointments were made to fill up the posts. His grievance was that channel of promotion to the post of Auction Recorder was only through promotion as per the instructions contained in Estt-5/22375-631 dated 11.11.1983 but the respondent-Board had made an advertisement on 10.11.1983 calling for fresh appointments to the post of Auction Recorder and in order to get over the instructions dated 11.11.1983, the fresh CWP No.9229 of 1987 (O&M) [2] appointments were given as effective from a previous date namely from 05.10.1983. On account of such appointments, the petitioner had been denied the opportunity of promotion. 2. The counsel appearing for the respondent-Board would contend that the petitioner was not himself eligible for promotion at that time and the minimum criterion was that he should have served on probation at least a period of one year as a Caretaker before he could have been promoted. It is further contended that the petitioner had not given any representation claiming promotion at that point of time. I will reject this contention and hold that an appointment could not have been made on a retrospective date and if it was so done, it was evidently to get over the instructions dated 11.11.1983 that provided promotion as the only channel for appointment to the post of Auction Recorders. The petitioner must be taken as promoted on the day when he had completed one year probation, which is said to be the minimum qualification for a Caretaker to be considered for promotion. Considering the fact that the petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Caretaker in March, 1983, he would become eligible for promotion after the completion of one year and he shall be taken as promoted to the post of Auction Recorder from April, 1984. The petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for and the calculations shall be made for obtaining the benefits attendant on such deemed promotion and all the consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the said period, the liability shall also attract interest @ 6% per annum from today. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE