CWP No.6873 of 1992 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6873 of 1992 Date of Decision: 18.3.2010 Daya Chand Sahu ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Rajive Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Kahuria, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Deepak Girhotra, AAG, Haryana for the State-respondent No.1. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjive Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3 & 4. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed by way back in 1992 on the ground that petitioner was eligible to be considered for the promotion for the post of Administration Engineer in Faridabad Complex Administration. Petitioner was not being considered for the promotion illegally; respondents No.3 and 4 should not be considered for the promotion. 2. Mr. Deepak Girhotra, AAG, Haryana and counsels for respondents No.2, 3 and 4 have stated at bar that petitioner has already been promoted in 1995 as Administration Engineer thereafter CWP No.6873 of 1992 2 petitioner was promoted to subsequent post of Superintendent Engineer on 22.10.2007, during the pendency of present petition. In view of promotion granted to the petitioner present petition has rendered infractuous. Copy of promotion order of the petitioner furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is taken on record. 3. Mr. Rajive Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that although petitioner got the promotion during the pendency of present petition but the question as to whether petitioner is entitled to get promotion w.e.f. 1992 still survives which should be considered in the present writ petition. 4. On being asked learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner is claiming promotion w.e.f. 1992. The relief claimed in the writ petition was to consider the petitioner for promotion. Further relief was not to consider respondents No.3 and 4 for the promotion. 5. In view of the fact that petitioner as well as respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted during the pendency of the present writ petition on the post of Administration Engineer and thereafter further promoted on higher posts nothing survive in the present petition. 6. The question as to whether petitioner is entitled for promotion w.e.f. 1992 is not a subject matter of the present writ petition, hence, no adjudication is required on this issue. Present petition is dismissed being infructuous, however, it is made clear that petitioner may take appropriate legal remedy for claiming promotion w.e.f. 1992. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 18.3.2010 sharmila CWP No.6873 of 1992 3