IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.8743 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 18, 2011. Surinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sapan Dhir, 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 is a Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police, Telecommunication Wing. He seeks quashing of the seniority list of the Assistant Sub Inspectors/Sub Inspectors of the Telecommunication Wing issued vide memo dated 29.2.2008, 4.7.2008, 21.1.2011 and 11.5.2011 (Annexures P-11, P-12, P-17 & P-19). He also seeks quashing of the consequential promotion order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P-20) passed in favour of the private respondents. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Officers Committee which also consists of a Senior Law Officer of the rank of Additional Advocate General, Punjab, constituted under the orders of this CWP No.8743 of 2011 [2] Court, has examined the inter-se claims at threadbare and in the context of seniority dispute of the petitioner (promotee) viz-a-viz private respondents (directly recruited ASIs), the Committee has recommended as follows: “...Thus, all permotees would deem to have been confirmed two years after they were promoted as ASI, unless their probation period was specifically extended in terms of Rule 13.18. Similarly all probationary ASIs would be deemed to be confirmed three years after appointment as such, unless their period of probation is specifically extended as per Rule 12.8 of the PPR 1934......” It is the petitioner's case that the above stated report of the Officers Committee has been duly accepted by the State Government as the Director General of Police, Punjab vide memo dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P-18) has forwarded the same to all the Heads of the Police Departments in Punjab for implementation and taking necessary action. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the categoric recommendation made by the Officers Committee, as reproduced above, the impugned seniority lists have been issued in total contradiction thereto with a view to favour the private respondents. It is in this backdrop that one of the relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the officials respondents to implement the report of the Officers Committee, re-fix the seniority and thereafter make the consequential promotions. The above stated claim is said to have been raised by the petitioner by submitting the objections against the seniority list which, according to the petitioner, have not been disposed of so far. CWP No.8743 of 2011 [3] Be that as it may, it is imperative upon the official respondents to take a categoric view on the report submitted by the Officers Committee and if it has been decided to be accepted in principle, to give effect to the recommendations made by the Officers Committee before making promotions etc. on the basis of the previous or repeated seniority lists. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take an appropriate decision and if it is found that as a result of acceptance and implementation of the report of the Officers Committee, the seniority lists need altered, the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the consequential reversion/promotion, if any, shall also take place accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. May 18, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE