IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15565 of 1989 Date of Decision: October 24, 2009 Ram Piara Sandhu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent Nos.3 to 13. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The matter was admitted for final adjudication at a time when even written statement had not been filed. The claim made in the petition is for quashing orders of promotion of respondent Nos.3 to 13 (Annexure P-4 to P-10) and for expunging adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner, Annexure P-11, for the year 1987-88. The petition further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to CWP No.15565 of 1989 [2] promote the petitioner on the post of Deputy Director Industries at Roster Point 22 in accordance with Instructions dated 4.5.1974 w.e.f. 17.4.1985. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that reply was filed subsequent to the admission of the petition. Perusal of the contents of written statement indicates that the matter has been rendered infructuous. In response to Para 6 to 23, the following is the stand of the respondents:- “That in this connection, it is submitted that the petitioner has since been promoted. The petitioner was not superseded with his junior Shri V.N. Mathur. In fact, while promoting Shri V.N. Mathur, a post has been kept reserved for the petitioner. The Adverse remarks against the petitioner for the year 1987-88, have been expunged. The petitioner has been promoted against the roster point No.22.” The petition is disposed of as infructuous on the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-State. (AJAI LAMBA) October 24, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?