IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16454 of 1994 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 29, 2010 SUKHJIT SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AK Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. ND Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 30.6.1993 (Annexure P-1), to the extent it affects the rights of the petitioners by virtue of promotion of respondents No.10 to 14 to the posts of Head Constables. Another prayer made in the petition is for quashing promotion of respondents No.4 to 9 made on adhoc basis, without considering the claim of the petitioners, who are senior to the said respondents. The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Civil Writ Petition No.16454 of 1994 (O&M) 2 mandamus directing the official respondents to consider and promote the petitioners to the posts of Head Constables with effect from their entitlement. 2. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners joined Punjab Police on different dates as Constables and successfully passed B- 1 test on 28.2.1992. The gist of the claim is that the private respondents were given promotion, although the petitioners are senior to the said respondents. 3. In para-7 of the application (CM 16618 of 2010), it has been pleaded that the private respondents, except respondent No.9, have been reverted from the posts of Head Constables to the posts of Constables, after following procedure, in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the claim in regard to the seniority of the private respondents does not survive any more. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that the claim of the petitioners for consideration for promotion survives in regard to which this Court needs to address the issue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has clarified that in regard to respondent No.9, the petitioners have filed a separate representation and the petitioners would agitate the issue before the department. 6. This petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the private respondents, except respondent No.9, have been reverted. 7. In regard to the claim of the petitioners for promotion, the Civil Writ Petition No.16454 of 1994 (O&M) 3 official respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of their seniority and rules and instructions issued by the official respondents. November 29, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?