CWP No.8520 of 1987 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CWP No.8520 of 1987 Date of decision: 05.09.2008 Kuldip Singh Bhatti (dead) ... Petitioners through his legal representatives Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. SS Rangi and Mr.H.S.Tuli, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This petition was initially filed by Kuldip Singh Bhatti, Law Officer, Directorate Local Government Punjab, Chandigarh. During the pendency of the present petition, petitioner died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The short grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Law Officer on 17.03.1974 in the Directorate of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, as Class-II Officer. One post of the Deputy Director (Headquarters) became vacant on retirement of K.K.Sayal, on 31.10.1987 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner represented to respondent No.1 that the post of Deputy Director (Headquarters) be filled CWP No.8520 of 1987 :2: up by promotion from amongst the Class-II officers from the department. He also mentioned that he has more than 13 years in his credit as Class-II Officer and is fully qualified for the post of the Deputy Director (Headquarters). It is the admitted case of the parties that the post of the Deputy Director (Headquarters) was filled up by deputing respondent No.3, a P.C.S Officer. This deputation by transfer was in pursuance of a D.O. Letter dated 14.10.1987 from respondent No.2, wherein it is mentioned that no departmental Class-II Officer is eligible to fill up the vacant post and requested the competent authority to depute a PCS Officer. This D.O. Letter further mentions that all the five Regional Deputy Directors, Local Bodies in the State are PCS Officers. It is stated by the petitioner that he was eligible and was required to be appointed by promotion to the post of the Deputy Director (Headquarters). The claim of the petitioner is, however, disputed by the respondents. According to the respondents, there are no rules for regulating the promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Headquarters). In the absence of any such rules, it was deemed appropriate to fill up the post by transfer from other departments which procedure was adopted in the past and the post of the Deputy Director were filled up by the PCS Officers. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was also considered for promotion alongwith the claims of other Gazetted officers of the Directorate, who hold cadre posts and were seniors to the petitioner, but none of them was found suitable for the said post. CWP No.8520 of 1987 :3: I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the post of the Deputy Director (Headquarters) being a cadre post should not have been filled up by deputation from the ex cadre post. The petitioner who was a Cadre Officer, has not been considered for promotion, though he was in Class-II category. No material has been placed on record as to what is the mode and manner of promotion to the post of Deputy Director and what was the qualifications required to fill up the said post. It is not known whether the petitioner was from feeding cadre and whether the petitioner possess the requisite qualifications prescribed or not. In the absence of any such material, it is not possible to effectively consider the claim of the petitioner. Apart from the above, the respondents have specifically mentioned that the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Headquarters) was considered and examined along with the claims of other Officers of the Directorate, who hold cadre posts and are ranked senior to him on the basis of their higher pay scales, but none of them was found suitable. In view of this averment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 05.09.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO