IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.349 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2010 The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. -----Appellant Vs. Sh. Paramjit Rai & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. ----- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of L.P.A. No.349 of 1998 filed by the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. and L.P.A. No.399 of 1998 filed by the State of Punjab, as both the appeals have been preferred against common order of learned Single Judge, directing consideration of case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 1.3.1994. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner was recruited as Assistant Engineer with the appellant Corporation in August, 1978 and was promoted as Divisional Engineer in the year 1986. He LPA No.349 of 1998 became eligible for next promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer under the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Employees Service Bye-laws, 1977. However, his case was not considered as one Shri P.K. Sharma was brought on deputation on the promotional post. As per amendment to the rules dated 26.9.1995, 50% posts were to be filled up on deputation and 50% by promotion. The respondent filed writ petition seeking direction for consideration of his case for promotion, instead of the post being filled up by deputation. The petition was defended by stating that deputation was one of the methods of filling up the posts and choice could be exercised accordingly by the concerned authority. 3. Learned Single Judge held that though option to choose one of the methods was available, the exercise of power of making the said choice could not be arbitrary, resulting in denial of chance of promotion. 4. While admitting this appeal, operation of impugned judgment was stayed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that Shri D.R. Dhingra, respondent No.3., who was taken on deputation as Superintending Engineer, retired during pendency of this appeal and respondent No.1 was given promotion w.e.f. 30.6.1999. 2 LPA No.349 of 1998 7. In view of the fact that respondent No.1 has already been given promotion, only question which survives is whether the respondent is entitled to ante dating of promotion. 8. Since for the period prior to promotion of the writ petitioner, deputation arrangement had been working, there is no justification for ante dating of promotion. At best, the writ petitioner could claim right to be considered for promotion and could object to deputation arrangement continuing for indefinite period. The impugned direction with regard to date or promotion will stand modified accordingly. 9. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 15, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3