LPA No. 244 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 244 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 25, 2011 Chander Mohan …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment 30.08.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant any relief to the appellant and dismissing his petition. The appellant was selected as SPO on 27.12.1993, as a result of a competitive test held by the Board constituted by the Police Department, Punjab. He was enlisted as Computer Operator on 11.01.1994. Subsequently, he was appointed as Constable w.e.f. 23.06.1994. However, he was reverted back as SPO by the State although he was once again recruited as Constable on 08.04.1998. He claimed that he should be given seniority and consequential benefits w.e.f. 23.06.1994, which is a date when he LPA No. 244 of 2011 (O&M) -2- was initially appointed as Constable. 2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the claim made by the appellant on two grounds. Firstly, it was held that the appellant did not challenge his order of reversion dated 13.02.1998 from the post of Constable to that of SPO. Secondly, his appointment as a Constable was challenged by his seniors in CWP No. 7455 of 1996. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 12.12.1996. The respondents claimed that the order of reversion was passed to implement the judgment dated 12.12.1996 rendered in CWP No. 7455 of 1996. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. 4. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge would show that the appellant did not challenge his order of reversion. However, the aforesaid fact has not been correctly recorded by the learned Single Judge. The prayer clause made in the writ petition reads as under: “(i) xx xx xx xx (ii) issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.2.1998 (Annexure P-6/1). (iii) xx xx xx xx (iv) xx xx xx xx (vi) xx xx xx xx (vii) xx xx xx xx” LPA No. 244 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 5. A perusal of the order dated 13.02.1998 (P-6) would show that the appellant was reverted as SPO and the order dated 13.02.1998 was to be pasted in his service book. Therefore, first reason recorded by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the prayer made by the appellant on facts is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter require fresh look at the hand of the learned Single Judge because there is error apparent on the face of record, which needs to be rectified by remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above, the judgment dated 30.08.2010 is set aside. The matter is sent back to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE April 25, 2011 Atul