IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.4801 of 1998 Date of Decision: 20.7.2010 Subash Chander. ....... Petitioner through Ms.Priya Narayan, Advocate for Shri K.L.Arora, Advocate . Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 3 through Shri Surinder Kapoor, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab. Respondent nos. 4 to 6 through Shri Tarun Lehal for Shri Tushan Sharma, Advocate. None for other respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing memo/order dated 22.1.1997 (Annexure P14) issued by the Chief Engineer (North), Punjab PWD,Public Health Branch,Patiala along with which a list of Junior Engineers,who were to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, was circulated to all the Superintending Engineers of C.W.P. No.4801 of 1998 -2- .... the department for sending specific information qua them. A further direction was sought to the official respondents to finalise the seniority list in accordance with the relevant service rules and then make the promotions. Still further, the petitioner prayed that the official respondents be commanded to consider his case for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer along with his juniors (private respondents) as per the seniority list, Annexure P2 and pay him all consequential benefits. The petitioner joined service as Sectional Officer (now Junior Engineer) on 17.9,.1970 and he was posted in P.W.D.Public Health, Bathinda. By this time, he has superannuated. As is apparent from the facts, the dispute pertains to promotion on the plea that the petitioner is senior to the private respondents. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6 has very fairly stated that respondent nos. 4 to 6 have since retired from service. Having regard to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petition may be disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioner that in the event of any surviving claim, he shall be free to file a fresh petition. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of as infructuous with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. July 20,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge