IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19589 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.11.2010 Harmesh Singh Pabla, PCS … Petitioner Versus Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Aman Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6. Dr.Amanpreet Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.3. * * * 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing the combined eligibility list of the State Civil Services Officers dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-4) wherein name of the petitioner has not been included for the reason that against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2006. A further prayer has also been made for quashing notification dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure P-9) by making permanent post of IAS by way of promotion from PCS against the vacancies of the year 2007. Still a further prayer is for quashing order dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P- 8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on the ground that the matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment dated 1.2.2010 of this Court (Annexure P-10) rendered in CWP No.15798 of 2009 titled as Parveen Kumar, PCS v. UPSC and others). In response to the notice of motion having been issued, the Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Personnel-respondent No.2 has filed a short affidavit and has stated that in compliance with order dated 1.212010 passed in Parveen Kumar’s case (supra), the State of Punjab has forwarded the name of the petitioner to Union Public Service Commission-respondent No.1 with a request to include his name in the zone CWP No.19589 of 2010 of consideration. A copy of the communication dated 24.5.2010 sent to UPSC has been added with the affidavit as Annexure ‘A’. It has further been asserted that respondent-State has addressed another letter dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure ‘B’) to the Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi to review the select list of 2007-08 to avoid hardship to the officers. A perusal of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 as noticed above shows that the view taken by the Division Bench in Parveen Kumar’s case (supra) has been accepted. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner has been included in the select list and the same has been forwarded. However, Mr.Arora learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that notification including the name of the petitioner has not yet been issued and requested that a direction be issued to UPSC-respondent No.1 to issue the requisite notification so that the name of the petitioner is considered along with others in respect of vacancies pertaining to the year 2007. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to UPSC-respondent No.1 to notify the name of the petitioner by publishing an appropriate notification as per communication sent by State of Punjab-respondent No.2 on 24.5.2010 (Annexure ‘A’) attached with affidavit. The inclusion of the name of the petitioner should be earlier to any consideration of the officers for selection and appointment to the Indian Administrative Services in respect of vacancies meant for PCS Officers pertaining to the year 2007. Let the needful be done within one month from today. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 29.11.2010 sd 2