IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18101 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 11, 2010 Pritpal Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. The petition prays for issuance of writ to quash decision of official respondents vide which the private respondents have been made senior to the petitioners, and grant of consequential benefits. 2. Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been filed in Court which is taken on record. 3. The stand of the respondents in CWP No.18101 of 2009 [2] Para 1 of the Preliminary Submissions is in the following terms:- “1. That the names of the respondents were wrongly shown earlier to the petitioners due to clerical mistakes and after correcting the mistakes, the petitioners have already been promoted to the rank of ASI w.e.f. 1.4.2010 with respondents No.6 and 7 after placing at sr. No.22, 23 and 26 as per their correct seniority list showing senior from the respondents no.6 & 7, vide order No.3147- 57/AC-I dated 27.04.10 and seniority of Respondents 6 & 7 has been fixed according to the merit list mentioned below. Sr. No. Rank Name & No. Merit No 1. HC Pritpal Singh 31/MKS (Petitioner No.1) 26-A 2. HC Vishan Lal 187/MKS (Petitioner No.2) 37 3. HC Hira Singh 45/FDK (Respondent No.5) 66-B 4. HC Kashmir Singh 30/Moga (Respondent No.6) 86 5. HC Gursewak Singh 73/Moga (Respondent No.7) 93-B 6. HC Malkit Singh 24/MKS (Petitioner No.3) 93-C As such the claim of the petitioners has already been considered by the respondent no.2, the concerned and appropriate authority. So the petition is liable to be dismissed being infructuous.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of changed circumstances as noticed from the extracted portion of reply, the petition has been rendered infructuous. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (AJAI LAMBA) August 11, 2010 JUDGE avin