IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16581 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.01.2010. Gurcharan Singh and another .....Petitioners versus District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : None for the petitioners Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) It is informed by the learned State counsel that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. She further states that petitioner No.1-Gurcharan Singh was promoted to Class-III service before his retirement, whereas petitioner No.2 has retired from the post of Process Server. I have gone through the writ petition in which the petitioners have sought quashing of appointment of respondent Nos.5 to 10 as Naib Nazir/Receipt Clerks/Clerks in the office of respondent Nos.1 & 2. The C.W.P.No . 16581 of 1991 (O&M) 2 main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that while making the aforesaid appointments to Class-III posts, the Process Servers have not been considered. This fact has been specifically denied by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in para No.6 of their written statement wherein it is averred that the Process Servers were duly considered for appointment to Class-III posts of Nazir/Naib Nazir etc. In fact, it has been highlighted that during the period from 23.10.1972 till 3.10.1991, 13 Class-IV employees were promoted to the posts of Clerk/Nazir/Naib Nazir and except 3, all of them were earlier working as Process Servers. So far as the non-selection of the petitioners is concerned, it is averred in the written statement that the petitioners do not know the typewriting which is one of the prescribed qualification required for promotion of a Class-IV employee to the Class-III post and therefore, they were not eligible and suitable for promotions. No case to interfere with the impugned selection, at this stage, is made out. Dismissed. 13-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE