CWP No. 19931 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19931 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 08, 2010 Ravinder Singh Gill .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. B.S. Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-5 dated 19.07.2010 vide which, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from back date has been rejected. 2. It transpires that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 4807 of 2010 entitled Sh. Ravinder Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and others claiming right to consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. August 2008. The respondents were directed to take a decision on the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Vide Annexure P-5, decision has been taken. 4. Justice demand notice is dated 07.09.2009. The petitioner claims promotion w.e.f. 14.08.2008 on the premise that he had completed 18 years CWP No. 19931 of 2010 2 in service and, therefore, was entitled to promotion in terms of Rules and Instructions issued by the respondents. Decision Annexure P-5 makes it evident that no such instructions have been issued by Punjab Government according to which the petitioner could be promoted on his completing 18 years in service. 5. For considering promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, a Departmental Committee had been formed under internal administration. The claim of the petitioner was considered. The petitioner, at that point in time was under suspension and, therefore, was not found eligible for promotion. Report of the Committee is dated 28.11.2006. Be that as it may, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2009 on attaining the age of 58 years. The Departmental Committee that met in November 2009 also could not consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in view of the retirement of the petitioner. 6. I find that the petitioner cannot succeed in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction as no ground for interference is made out. 7. Petition dismissed. 08.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?