IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1430 of 2010 Date of Decision : 28.01.2010. Balbir Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, 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) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 4 only at this stage. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby her alleged juniors (respondent Nos.5 to 7) have been promoted as District Mass Education and Information Officers. She C.W.P.No .1430 of 2010 (O&M) 2 also seeks a mandamus to direct the official respondents to promote her to the afore-said post from the date her juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits. After giving the factual narration of her own as well as the private respondents regarding different posts held by them in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, the petitioner relies upon the provisional seniority list for the year-2007 (Annexure P-2) in which atleast respondent Nos.6 & 7 are shown juniors to her. It is the petitioner's case that the aforesaid seniority list has now attained finality. The petitioner's further case is that her juniors-respondent Nos.6 & 7 have been promoted as District Mass Education and Information Officers vide order dated 26.11.2008 ignoring and over- looking her preferential claim, though she possesses unblemished service record which entitles her to such promotion. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the official respondents need to examine two issues, namely, (i) whether the petitioner is senior to the private respondents, especially respondent Nos.6 & 7 and if so, (ii) is she also entitled to be promoted as District Mass Education and Information Officer? Unfortunately, the aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken by the official respondents despite the representations (Annexures P-4 & P-5) said to have been sent by the petitioner. In these circumstances and without adverting to the merits of the controversy, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to C.W.P.No .1430 of 2010 (O&M) 3 address both the above-mentioned issues and determine the claim of the petitioner qua seniority and consequential promotion vis-a-vis the private respondents, on or before 30.4.2010. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found entitled to, she will be granted promotion with all consequential benefits. Disposed of. Dasti. 28-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE