C.W.P. No. 18090 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18090 of 1991 Date of decision : 24.03.2011 Shiv Charan ...Petitioner versus Haryana State and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Nemo for the parties. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) As is evident from the record that Petitioner-Shiv Charan son of Lala Ram was appointed as Sewadar (Octroi) in the office of Municipal Committee, Rewari (respondent No.3) as back as on 22.01.1981. As he was not matriculate and was not eligible for promotion, therefore, his claim for promotion to the higher post of Octroi Moharrir was ignored. 2. In the wake of C.W.P. No. 18090 of 1991 filed by the petitioner, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) to decide the representation/matter of promotion of the petitioner within a period of two months, vide order dated 04.05.1992. In pursuance thereof the indicated matter was decided and since the service record of the petitioner was not found good, so again his claim for promotion to the higher post of Octroi Moharrir, was ignored by respondent No.2, by way of impugned order dated 23.07.1992 (Annexure P-11), the operative part of which is as under: - “Keeping in view the above circumstances the date of promotion of Shiv Charan is 18.8.91 certainly he was matric but his record is not good even today for promotion. According to the 10 Annual confidential reports C.W.P. No. 18090 of 1991 -2- for the last ten years from 1981-82 to 1990-91 this employee had earned 5 good reports and 5 average reports which are not good more than 70%. So, the application of the applicant is rejected as his record was not good more than 70% at the time of cut off date.” 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-11), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. This writ petition was filed by petitioner on 05.12.1991 through his counsel late Sh. S.P. Gupta, Advocate. As the counsel for petitioner had expired, therefore, the Registry was directed to issue actual date notice of hearing to the petitioner. 5. As per office report, petitioner has been duly served. As nobody is appearing on behalf of the petitioner despite service, therefore, it is apparent that petitioner is not interested in pursuing this old case of promotion, as possibility of his retirement from service, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 6. In this view of the matter, no option is left with this Court except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. March 24, 2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge