LPA No. 1543 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1543 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Gurmeet Singh …Appellant Versus Dharam Paul Mangla and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. 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 interlocutor order dated 05.08.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order the writ petition filed by the respondents has been admitted and grant of regular promotions on the posts of Establishment Officer/ Superintendent Grade-I have been stayed. However, liberty has been given to give current duty charge strictly as per seniority. 2. It appears that the dispute raised in the writ petition pertains to decade old controversy whether reservation in promotions would be admissible plainly and without any condition. The controversy has been settled by the Constitution Bench LPA No. 1543 of 2011 (O&M) -2- judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India & others (2006) 8 SCC 212. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction or beyond the limit of jurisdiction or impropriety. The interlocutory order makes sufficient arrangements for functioning of the officers by permitting the official respondents to given current duty charge during the pendency of the petition. The petition has been ordered to be heard within one year. The Letter Patent Bench is always slow in interfering in the interlocutory orders. Even otherwise the controversy needs detail examination at the hands of the learned Single Judge. It is needless to mention that we should not be taken to have expressed any opinion on the merit of the controversy. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and does not warrant admission. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 29, 2011 Atul