CWP No.12950 of 2005.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12950 of 2005 Date of Decision: 27.04.2010 **** Sat Pal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.12.2001 (Annexure P7), whereby, respondent No.3 has been promoted as Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to promote him as Sub Divisional Officer with effect from the date when his alleged junior, namely, respondent No.3, has been promoted. (2). The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Punjab and has qualified AMIE examination on June, 2000. He is placed at Serial No.559 in the CWP No.12950 of 2005.doc - 2 – Seniority List of Junior Engineers. The petitioner has averred that respondent No.3 is junior to him yet the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his name and consequent thereupon, he has been promoted vide the impugned order. (3). The official respondents have filed their counter-affidavit explaining that promotions to the cadre of Sub Divisional Officers are made from different sources including Junior Engineers and Drawing Branch, namely, Draftsmen, besides the direct recruitment. It is averred that respondent no.3 (Raghbir Singh) has been promoted from the Drawing Branch to which he belongs, whereas the petitioner is an AMIE-qualified Junior Engineer. It is, thus, explained that there is no inter-se-seniority between the petitioner and respondent No.3 as they belong to two different streams. It is further explained that amongst the AMIE qualified junior Engineers, S/Shri Kulwant Singh and Sat Pal, who are senior to the petitioner, are still awaiting promotions and that no junior to the petitioner has been promoted. (4). It is also averred that there is only 13% quota in promotions for the AMIE qualified Junior Engineers and they are already in excess to their quota. CWP No.12950 of 2005.doc - 3 – (5). The above-mentioned facts have not been controverted by the petitioner. That being so, no fault can be found with the promotion granted to respondent No.3. So far as the petitioner’s allegation that his case was not considered by the DPC as it was not placed before it timely, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the official respondents that if the petitioner, as per his seniority amongst the AMIE-qualified Junior Engineers, is entitled to be considered for promotion, let his case be also placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the Rules and the same shall be considered by the DPC within a period of three months from the date it is placed before it. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 27.04.2010 vishal shonkar