Civil Writ Petition No. 14057 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14057 of 1991 Date of Decision: February 24, 2010 Yash Pal Singh and others ......... Petitioners versus The State of Haryana and others .......... Respondents 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- None for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. In the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioners who were promoted on ad hoc basis as Head Constable were reverted as Constable. It has been pleaded that petitioners No.1 to 4 were promoted as Head Constable on 25.5.1991, 29.6.1991, 26.6.1991 and 29.6.1991 respectively. The order of promotion as reproduced in the writ petition shows that petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis for showing bravery, presence of mind and devotion of duties in apprehending the terrorists in the Civil Writ Petition No. 14057 of 1991 [2] FIR mentioned therein. It was specifically mentioned that this is temporary and ad hoc promotion and the petitioner shall not have any right for seniority of this post and will be liable for reversion without any notice. Respondent No.5 was also promoted as Head Constable on 6.8.1991. It is pleaded by the petitioners that they have been ordered to be reverted whereas respondent No.5, who was promoted as Head Constable subsequent to the petitioners, has been retained, therefore, reversion of the petitioners was challenged in the present writ petition. The writ petition was admitted to final hearing on 28.11.1991. No interim order was granted in favour of the petitioners. In reply, it has been pointed out that no junior person than the petitioners is working as a Head Constable as respondent No.5 has also been reverted as Constable vide order dated 15.10.1991. The orders of promotion of the petitioners clearly shows that it is ad hoc promotion. Since it was ad hoc promotion, the same has been rightly withdrawn. It is not the case of the petitioners that any person junior to them, other than respondent No.5, was promoted as Head Constable and retained as such. Since respondent No.5, who alone was said to be retained as Head Constable, has been reverted, I do not find any illegality in the order Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioners were reverted as Constable. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Dismissed. February 24, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE