CWP No. 6589 of 1993. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6589 of 1993. [O&M] Date of Decision: 24th February, 2011. Harkesh Kumar Petitioner through Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6589 of 1993 and 15582 of 1992 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 6589 of 1993. [2]. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order [Annexure P3] whereby the third respondent [Satnam Singh] has been promoted from the post of Junior Engineer [Civil] to the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil]. [3]. The solitary plea pressed into aid by the petitioner to impugn the promotion of respondent No. 3 is that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 both had competed and were selected as Junior Engineers [Civil] through the same selection process in which the petitioner was selected and appointed against a post reserved for CWP No. 6589 of 1993. ::-2-:: Backward Classes whereas respondent No. 3 was appointed against the general category post. It is urged that respondent No. 3 subsequently produced a certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer [Civil], Gurdaspur that he belonged to the backward class category and on the basis of the said certificate that he has been treated as a Backward Class candidate and became senior to the petitioner amongst the Backward Class Junior Engineers, has been given the consequential promotion vide the impugned order. [4]. The petitioner has placed on record some additional documents to contend that the third respondent actually belongs to 'Ramgaria' Caste which has been declared 'Backward Class' by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 22.08.2001 only, whereas he got the promotion on 8.10.1992. Respondent No. 3 on the other hand contends that he belongs to Lohar caste which has been declared a 'Backward Class' from the very beginning and on that basis only the Backward Class Certificate dated 29.06.1976 [Annexure R3/2] was issued in his favour by the Sub Divisional Officer [Civil], Gurdaspur. [5]. The controversy essentially boils down to the point as to whether respondent No. 3 belongs to Lohar or Ramgaria caste and was he a person belonging to Backward Class category on the date when he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil]? In order to resolve the afore-stated factual controversy, learned counsel for the parties agree that let there be a fact finding inquiry regarding the caste of respondent No. 3 by the Sub Divisional Officer [Civil], Gurdaspur. Suffice it to observe that if in the inquiry it is found that respondent No. 3 actually belongs to Lohar caste, no fault can be found with the decision of the Competent Authority to treat him a CWP No. 6589 of 1993. ::-3-:: Backward Class category candidate and grant the promotion. However, if it is found that respondent No. 3 belongs to Ramgaria caste which was declared 'Backward Class' in the year 2001 only, in that case, the Competent Authority shall be required to reconsider and re-call the promotion granted to respondent No. 3. [6]. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer [Civil], Gurdaspur to hold a fact finding inquiry and submit his report to the Punjab Mandi Board within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The follow-up action shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry and appropriate orders shall be passed within two months thereafter. [7]. Disposed of. Dasti. February 24, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE