CWP No.4817 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4817 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2011 **** Charanjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. HS Sirohi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Pradeep Bhandari, Advocate for respondents No.3&4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 3rd July, 2009 along with the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Cooperative Bank to the extent it indicates that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Clerk shall be considered in due course of time against the post already reserved for him. (2). The petitioner served as a Cane Clerk in the Budhlada Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. from the year 1991 to 1997- 98. His services were later on terminated as he was CWP No.4817 of 2010.doc - 2 – declared surplus. It appears that in terms of the executive instructions issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide memo dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure P1), some posts in different Co- operative institutions have been reserved to adjust the surplus employees of the Budhlada Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. The posts of Clerks in the Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank have also been reserved to adjust the Clerks rendered surplus. (3). Apprehending complete uncertainty regarding his absorption against the earmarked posts, that the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). Learned counsel for respondent-Bank, on instructions from Tarsem Sharma, Assistant Manager of respondent No.4, states that subject to the petitioner’s eligibility his claim for adjustment against the post of Clerk shall be considered within six months. (5). The above-stated offer is acceptable to the counsel for the petitioner. (6). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made above. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 05.04.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge