Civil Writ Petition No.3569 of 2008 ***** Hari Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant relaxation to the petitioner as granted to some similarly situated persons. He, however, has not clarified as to what relaxation he is seeking. Counsel for the petitioner then orally submits that prayer was for relaxing the rules for qualifying in departmental examination, which was considered in cases of some other persons, who were similarly situated. During course of arguments, the counsel, however, has pressed for considering grant of second prayer made in the writ petition, which is to the effect that atleast there should be one channel for promotion provided to him, there being none available as on date. This part of the prayer made by the petitioner may deserve consideration. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp)Supreme Court Cases 688 and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another Vs. K.G.S.Bhatt and another, (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 635. The Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain (supra), after considering various aspects of the issue observed that there is no justification why similarly placed officers of any Ministry would have benefit of promotion and the Civil Writ Petition No.3569 of 2008 :{ 2 }: petitioner therein would be deprived of such advantage. It was observed that promotion increases efficiency in public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that model rules be framed in the said Ministry with such alteration as may be necessary to provide atleast one channel of promotion. In the light of the observations made above, the prayer of the petitioner requires consideration. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider this part of the claim made by the petitioner in the petition and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. August 4, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE