CWP No.12393 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12393 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2010 **** Sanjiv Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.6,7,9 & 13 Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for respondents No.8, 10, 11 & 12 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.07.2007 (Annexure P1) whereby respondents No.5 to 13 have been promoted as Inspectors (Legal Metrology). He also seeks quashing of the order dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure P2), rejecting his claim for promotion against the above- mentioned post on the ground that he does not fulfill the educational qualification laid down CWP No.12393 of 2008.doc - 2 – under Rule 20 of the Punjab Standards of Weights & Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1993 (in short, ‘the 1993 Rules’). (2). In their counter-affidavit, the respondents have clarified that recruitment to the above-mentioned post is actually governed by the Punjab Industries Department (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1956 (in short, ‘the 1956 Rules’) and not under the 1993 Rules relied upon by the petitioner. It is further clarified that there is no academic qualification prescribed for promotion to the said post under the 1956 Rules. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this writ petition so far as the challenge to the promotion of the private respondents is concerned. (4). As regard to the order Annexure P2, the same cannot sustain and is hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for promotion as and when his turn arises in accordance with the Rules and following the same practice as has been applied in the case of similarly-situated officials. CWP No.12393 of 2008.doc - 3 – (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.03.2010 vishal shonkar