IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12858 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2009 SAT PAL CHHABRA ....... 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) Shri Sat Pal Chhabra has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner as Sub Divisional Engineer against available vacancies from the date when his juniors i.e. respondents No.3 and 4, had been promoted, and grant all consequential benefits. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure P-4) under which Civil Writ Petition No. 12858 of 2001 2 Current Duty Charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer had been withdrawn from the petitioner. With regard to the second prayer, learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had no claim to continue on Current Duty Charge. The petitioner has already retired. With regard to the first prayer, learned counsel for the respondent-State has informed the court that a meeting of the Screening committee for promotion of degree holder Junior Engineers/Draftsmen was held on 1.1.2005. The case of the petitioner was duly considered and it has been recorded as under:- “He is 4th senior most eligible candidate. Since the overall record of Sh. Satyapal Chhabra has not been good and has not achieved the criteria prescribed by the Screening Committee. For these reasons his name is not recommended and therefore he shall be ignored for promotion.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that other than the fact that the petitioner has already retired, there is no challenge to the proceedings of the Screening Committee. In view of the above facts, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 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?