HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14191 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.09.2011 **** Rakesh Kumar . . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who is working as a Senior Assistant in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab seeks promotion as Superintendent Gr-II on the basis of his seniority. (2). The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Clerk w.e.f. 23.12.1981 against the quota meant for Class-IV employees as per his eligibility and seniority or was he entitled to such appointment w.e.f. 26.09.1983 only i.e. the date when he was adjusted on regular basis? It may be mentioned here that the appointment order dated 23.12.1981 (Annexure P1) recites that the petitioner was CWP No.14191 of 2009.doc - 2 – appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months on a post meant for direct-recruitees and not against the promotion quota. There are certain orders like dated 04.05.2005 (Annexure P4) passed by the Head of the Department saying that the services of the petitioner “as a Clerk from 23.12.1981 to 25.09.1983 shall be counted as on regular basis”. (3). The petitioner has approached this Court seeking his appointment as Supdt.Gr-II by counting his seniority as Clerk w.e.f. 23.12.1981. (4). Since the order(s) relied upon by the petitioner to assert the above-mentioned date of his appointment as a regular Clerk are not being categorically defended by the respondents in their reply/affidavit, wherein it is reiterated that the petitioner was appointed as a regular Clerk on the recommendations of the Staff Selection Board vide order dated 26.09.1983 only, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.2 & 4 to firstly determine as to whether there was any vacancy in the cadre of Clerks meant for promotion quota as on 23.12.1981 against which the petitioner was entitled for promotion as per his seniority and eligibility? Suffice it to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits if the answer to the above question is in 2 CWP No.14191 of 2009.doc - 3 – affirmative. otherwise the petitioner shall have no claim for promotion as Superintendent Gr-II. (5). Appropriate orders to this effect shall be passed by respondents No.2&4 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 19.09.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge 3