IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3220 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 23, 2011. Anil Gour .....Petitioner versus Punjab and Haryana High Court and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Suvineet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), seeks quashing of the adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential report for the year 2006-2007. The petitioner has admittedly represented against the above-said adverse remarks and the final decision, if any, taken thereupon has not been communicated to him as the same does not find a part of this record. The second grievance of the petitioner is his apprehension of some punitive action based upon the impugned annual confidential report. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of the considered view that the writ petition at this stage is wholly pre-mature. The action taken on the petitioner's representation as C.W.P.No .3220 of 2011 2 and when communicated to him would determine as to whether or not he has any cause of action to approach this Court. Similarly, no punitive action, as apprehended by him, has been taken against him so far. The writ petition is pre-mature on both counts and is dismissed accordingly with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as and when the occasion arises. Dasti. February 23, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE