CWP No. 23470 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 23470 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.12.2011 Gurmit Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R S Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Contends that in pursuance to the judgement passed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2001 in CWP No. 15834 of 1998, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that none of the present petitioners fall in the zone of consideration. Aggrieved, the petitioners made a representation (P5) alleging therein in para 7 that “As per the said chart, Jaswinder Singh who was petitioner No. 6 in the writ petition and Sant Ram who was petitioner No. 11 in the writ petition became eligible for promotion as Assistant Driller on 18.07.1985 but they were not so promoted. Further, case as per the order dated 30.03.2010 is that three vacancies became available on 24.06.1987 because by that time three persons, namely, Brij Lal, Lajpat Rai and S D Bhalla had retired. CWP No. 23470 of 2011 2 Against the said three posts, Amar Singh (non-petitioner), Ramesh Kumar (petitioner No. 15 in the writ petition) and Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition) became eligible for promotion as Assistant Driller but without any justification, they were also not promoted. This clearly shows that while passing the above referred order dated 30.03.2010, the case of the applicants/petitioners in the writ petition has not been properly considered as detailed above causing them a serious prejudice.” However, the respondent vide letter dated 29.11.2010 (P7) has declined to decide the representation on the ground that there was no direction issued by this Court in its order dated 30.08.2001 passed in CWP No. 15834 of 1998, to promote the petitioners retrospectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to decide the objections raised by the petitioners in para 7 of their representation quoted above as the respondents have simply declined to decide the same. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 26.07.2010 (P5), especially the objections raised in para 7 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the receipt of this order by passing a speaking order. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.12.2011 mohan