IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 15665 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2009 GURSHAM REHAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 5.9.2001 (Annexure P-6) under which Current Duty Charge as Executive Engineer had been withdrawn. In the prayer clause, it has also been prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Executive Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted Civil Writ Petition No. 15665 of 2001 2 on regular basis and to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Executive Engineer i.e. the post which the petitioner is independently handling since November, 1997, on Current Duty Charge. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed that the cause of action does not survive any more in this petition in so much as in the written statement (para-3 of the preliminary submissions), it has been brought out that the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the case of the petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer along with other eligible officers. The case of the petitioner had to be kept in a sealed cover because a charge-sheet (Annexure P-10) under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1978 had been issued. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further pointed out that the charges against the petitioner had been dropped and, therefore, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was given promotion as Executive Engineer from the date when persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted. Considering the facts as brought out by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, this petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. July 13, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?