IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9874 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 25, 2010. Twinkle Gupta .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Y.P.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is working as a Clerk in the Co-operation Department, Government of Punjab, was assessed as an “Average” employee in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2001-2002 to 2003-2004. It appears that these reports were communicated to him belatedly. The petitioner made a representation/appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, who has turned down the same vide order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner has thereafter, submitted an “Appeal” before the Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Government of Punjab, on 23/29.4.2009 which too has been rejected by the State Government vide order dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-13). C.W.P.No .9874 of 2010 2 A perusal of the order passed by the State Government does indicate that the petitioner's appeal-cum-second representation has been rejected after going through his service and under the rules. Though the petitioner has attributed malice towards the Reporting Officer, in my considered view the said afterthought plea has no factual basis to stand, especially when the higher authorities like Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, have also considered the matter and found no substance in the petitioner's allegations. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. May 25, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE