CWP No. 12524 of 1992 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12524 of 1992 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 Naranjan Singh Sidhu ......Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri TPS Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional AG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 2.9.1992 (Annexure P.7), promoting respondent No.3 to the post of Joint Director. The petitioner joined as a Male Social Worker in the year 1963 with the respondent-Department. He was promoted as Tehsil Welfare Officer in the year 1971 and District Welfare Officer in the year 1978. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director vide order dated 17.7.1989, but with effect from 17.4.1986. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Statutory Rule s, have not been notified, but in terms of the Draft Rules, the post of Joint Director is required to be filled up from amongst the Deputy Director with 3 years CWP No. 12524 of 1992 (2) experience and Assistant Director with 5 years experience. It is pointed out by the petitioner that respondent No.3 was appointed directly as Deputy Director in May, 1989. Therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director as on 1.4.1992 as his experience as Deputy Director was less than three years. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was promoted on 17.7.1989. Such promotion was with the retrospective effect, and therefore, the petitioner has completed five years of experience on the post of Assistant Director and thus, eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director in terms of the Draft Rules. In view of the said fact, the petitioner has sought quashing of the promotion of respondent No.3 and sought his promotion to the post of Joint Director. In the written statement, it has been pointed out that respondent No.3 was on a higher post of Deputy Director. The claim of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide memos dated 9.5.1984 and 23.6.1987 and that the petitioner was also put under suspension vide Government Order dated 15.4.1986. Such facts were considered while promoting respondent No.3 to the higher post of Joint Director. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The petitioner was substantially promoted as Assistant Director vide order dated 17.7.1989. Assuming the period prior to his substantive promotion, i.e., from the date he was notionally promoted, can be taken into consideration for deciding the issue in question, but the petitioner has not controverted the fact that he was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.4.1986. In view of the said CWP No. 12524 of 1992 (3) suspension, grant of notional promotion with effect from 17.4.1986 may not be justified. However, keeping in view the fact that none has disputed the said promotion of the petitioner, the said issue need not be examined any further. Respondent No.3 was a direct recruit to the post of Deputy Director. His experience was short by two months for promotion to the post of Joint Director in terms of the Draft Rules. Such Draft Rules cannot be equated with the Statutory Rules. However, such Draft Rules are instructions, which are required to be kept in view, while considering the claim of a candidate for promotion to the higher post. Since respondent No.3 was working on a higher post of Deputy Director as against the present petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Director and was not having a clean record, it cannot be said that the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Joint Director, is unjustified. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.4.2009 ds