C.W.P. No.18033 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18033 of 2011 Date of Decision.23.09.2011 Piare Lal s/o Rakha Ram Inspector, Punjab Police, resident of 27 Ajit Avenue, Opposite Charch, Kanjli Road, Kapurthala, Distt. Kapurthala .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Kriti Singh, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who has been a complainant against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is aggrieved by the fact that a criminal complaint against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is still pending before Criminal Court but they have been favoured with orders of promotion. Learned counsel would refer to me a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh 1995(2) SCC 486 where the Hon''ble Supreme Court expressed shock that the Government had during the pendency of a criminal trial for offences under Section 302, reinstated the police officials and also given promotion. These expressions of revulsion by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were made in a case, which was dealing with appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the order of C.W.P. No.18033 of 2011 -2- acquittal that was granted by this Court after 15 years from the date when the case was filed. Expression of shock or revulsion have the place when writing judgments but if that principle is made a ground for complaint by a person through a writ petition, I am afraid I cannot take any lesson for application from the above judgment. I would also, like the Hon'ble Supreme Court, record my great concern for the standards that have come to at various levels where ineptness and inappropriate conduct are some time rewarded in public places. It is for the respective parties to make an introspection to find out whether such actions evoke public confidence or not. A case that could have taken a different turn obtains a rejection out of the ken of enquiry from this Court that the case suffers from a fundamental flaw of the complaint against promotion emanates from the petitioner, who himself is not in service and cannot be stated to be immediately prejudiced by an act of promotion. He is not himself a person vying for promotion to the post. There exists no public interest in service matters, as been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangti Gopal Reddy 2011 (5) SCC 484. A Division Bench of this Court has also taken a similar view that there exists no public interest in service matters in Jashkaran Singh Brar Vs. State of Punjab ILR (2005) IP P&H 143. 2. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 23, 2011 Pankaj*