IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 177 of 2008 (O.&M.) Date of Decision: 2.7.2008 The State of Punjab and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Versus Ajit Singh and another ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE The present appeal by the State of Punjab and others is directed against judgment dated 11.10.2006 of the learned Single Judge whereby C.W.P.No.7438 of 1995 filed by respondent no.1-Ajit Singh was allowed. The only controversy that was involved in the aforesaid writ petition and the instant appeal is that the Punjab State Accounts (Class-I) Service Rules,1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') required that for promotion as Controller/ Additional Director (Finance and Accounts), an incumbent ought to have worked as Chief Accounts Officer with a L.P.A.No.177 of 2008 (O.&M.) -2- ..... minimum experience of five years. Respondent no.1, who admittedly was working as Chief Accounts Officer with effect from 21.6.1988, was not promoted to the post of Controller/ Additional Director as it was the case of the appellants that he did not have the requisite five years' experience on 22.6.1993 because he was not regularly appointed to the post of Chief Accounts Officer. Learned Single Judge concluded that respondent no.1 had the requisite experience as he had concededly worked as Chief Accounts Officer with effect from 21.6.1988 till 22.6.1993 when his claim was ignored and that even otherwise, when the post was meant for the reserved category of Scheduled Castes, respondent no.1, who belonged to that category, ought to have been promoted. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since respondent no.1 did not have the requisite experience, he could not have been considered for promotion and, therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment is incorrect. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record carefully. There is no dispute regarding the facts. In our opinion, respondent no.1, having worked Chief Accounts Officer from 21.6.1988 till 22.6.1993 when he was to be considered for promotion as Controller/ Additional Director, clearly fell within the ambit of the Rules and was, therefore, entitled to be considered for promotion. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Single L.P.A.No.177 of 2008 (O.&M.) -3- ..... Judge. Accordingly, the appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed in limine. ( Vijender Jain ) Chief Justice July 02,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge