CM No.4994 of 2009 and CWP No.15656 of 2008 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:27.3.2009 Gurjewan Singh Sandhu (DPE) ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERFMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.GS Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): C.M. Application No.4994 of 2009 is allowed. Case is pre- poned for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up on the Board for final disposal. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.19 of 2007 (Lakhvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 13.08.2008, wherein the CM No.4994 of 2009 and CWP No.15656 of 2008 :2: following observations have been made:- “Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners, at the threshold of consideration, were ousted from consideration in violation of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to direct the respondent authorities to consider and determine the comparative merits of the petitioner(s) without quashing selection of any of the selected and appointed candidates. If the petitioners are found more meritorious than the candidates appointed in their respective categories, the petitioners shall be appointed forthwith with effect from the date the candidates lower in merit was/were appointed, with continuity of service and notional service benefits only. If in the process of such appointments of the petitioners the appointment (s) of already appointed candidates is to be cancelled, then the same shall be done after following due process of law. Respondents shall CM No.4994 of 2009 and CWP No.15656 of 2008 :3: however, be at liberty to accommodate them against any posts lying vacant. Ordered accordingly.” In the present petition, the petitioners are seeking promotion to the post of Lecturers in Physical Education, but they were denied such promotion on the ground that the petitioners possess M.A./Physical Education, whereas in the advertisement or the Rules, the qualification required for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education is Master of Physical Education. The same controversy has been decided in the aforesaid writ petition. Whether is it direct recruitment or by promotion, there is no distinction. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of promotion on the same analogy from the dates their juniors have been promoted. However, the petitioners will not be granted any monetary benefit. However, their salary etc. shall be fixed by giving them notional benefits of increments, seniority and pay revision, if any, during the aforesaid period. Mr.Chahal submits that judgment aforesaid passed by this Court has been challenged by the State of Punjab in the SLP before the CM No.4994 of 2009 and CWP No.15656 of 2008 :4: Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is clarified that the direction given in the judgment above-said, shall remain subject to outcome of the SLP. 27.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE