IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20344 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.01.2010. Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Balvinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 5 only at this stage. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 are proforma respondents only and need not be served at this stage. Similarly and in view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter- reply from the official respondents at this stage. The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Punjabi (School Cadre). He seeks a mandamus to direct the official respondents to consider his claim for retrospective promotion from the date when his juniors, C.W.P.No .20344 of 2009 (O&M) 2 namely, the private respondents were promoted. The petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion is based upon the 75% promotional quota provided under Rule 5 read with Appendix-B of the Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Rules, 1978. The petitioner's grievance is that notwithstanding his placement over and above the private respondents in the seniority list (Annexure P-3) he has not been considered for promotion from the due date nor his claim for retrospective promotion as contained in the legal notice dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) has been taken cognizance by the official respondents so far. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time but without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim for promotion above the private respondents, however, keeping in view some of the documents on record, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the claim raised by the petitioner in his legal notice dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Suffice it to observe that in case the petitioner is found entitled to promotion retrospectively, the necessary order to this effect shall also be passed within the afore-stated period. Disposed of. Dasti. 21-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE