CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1288 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 24 ,2011 Surinder Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K. L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D. R.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) 48 vacancies of Scale-1 Officers, out of which 28 were for general category, were notified for promotion. The petitioner, who was working as Senior Assistant in the National Insurance Company, was impanelled for consideration for promotion being eligible. He, however, was not promoted and accordingly has filed this writ petition to say that he was awarded 60 out of 60 marks and was at Sr.No.1, yet has not been selected. In the reply filed, it is stated that specific criteria made out CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1288 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: for promotion policy was declared. As per this, 50% posts were to be filled from amongst the employees who were eligible under Paragraph 13.1 and balance 50% under Paragraph 13.2. Paragraph 13.1 of the policy relates to the departmental channel of promotion, under which the eligible employees with requisite experience are entitled to be considered and their promotion is based on seniority, qualification work record and interview. Accordingly, it was stated that the petitioner could not be selected as he had obtained 142.13 marks whereas the last selected candidate had secured 147 marks on the basis of the criteria adopted and promulgated. The petitioner, however, had drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures P-8 and P-9 whereby he was informed that he had scored total 152.13 marks. The record was summoned to ascertain the factual position. The record is perused. As per the result sheet, the petitioner is shown to have obtained 142.13 marks and the information that he had secured 152.13 marks was inadvertently given to him. Counsel for the petitioner has also perused the record and is satisfied that actually the petitioner had secured 142.13 marks and, thus, could not be selected. Thus, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 24 ,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE