CWP No. 17792 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17792 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 16, 2010 Dr. Rama Garg .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. M.S. Jandiala, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Jatin Salwan, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing action of the official respondents in upgrading the Annual Confidential Reports of respondent no. 4 namely Dr. Manjit Singh, Medical Officer and promoting him to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Gyane vide order Annexure P-7. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Department of Gyane w.e.f. 15.09.2008 in place of respondent no. 4. 2. In the petition and in particular in para no. 7, it has specifically CWP No. 17792 of 2008 2 been pleaded that on information having been obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005, it transpires that the seniority list pertaining to respondent no. 4 had been tampered with and entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of the said respondent no. 4 were upgraded with hand written additional corrections. It has been pleaded that no notice of tampered record could have been taken while promoting the private respondent. 3. Affidavit of Ms. Anjali Bhawra, IAS, Secretary, Medical Education and Raesearch, Punjab has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. In para no. 3 of the affidavit, following has been said:- “It is indicated that as per record now perused only 7 posts of Senior Lecturer (Re-designated Asstt. Professor) Gynecology are sanctioned in the department of Obstetric. Against this sanction strength at present 9 Senior Lecturer (Re-designated Asstt. Professor) including Respondent no. 4 are working. Thus the issue of promotion vis-a-vis the availability of posts both in promotion quota and direct quota at the time of holding DPC on 1.7.2008 needs to be reviewed. The concerned parties will be given personal hearing and the matter will be taken to review DPC. Thereafter speaking order will be passed accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, contends that respondent no. 4 as also the petitioner would be given a detailed hearing. The said persons would be at liberty to file representations. The issue would be considered afresh and CWP No. 17792 of 2008 3 appropriate orders as required, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be passed. 5. In view of the statement given on behalf of the respondents, the petition is disposed of. 6. It is, however, made clear that the respondents would also conduct an inquiry in regard to the allegations of tampering in the official records. In case the fact is established, appropriate measures as required by law would be adopted, including lodging of a criminal case. The respondents are directed to take a decision within 3 months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 16.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?