CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2414 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 19, 2011 Sube Singh & others ..Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved by the condition imposed relating to passing of type test, the petitioners have approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus to promote them w.e.f. the dates the persons juniors to them were so promoted as Assistants without insisting upon the condition of passing type test. Other prayer is to release all increments and arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum. Notice of motion was issued. No reply has been 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 of 2011 filed. Mr. Rathee, however, has placed before me an order dated 18.7.2011 passed by the respondents, whereby the relief of promotion has been granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have been promoted w.e.f the date their juniors were promoted. Petitioner No.1-Sube Singh has thus been promoted w.e.f. 27.9.2006. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1-Sube Singh is entitled to promotion w.e.f. 15.3.2005/20.4.2005. This plea is countered by Mr. Rathee, who says that petitioner No.1 has been promoted w.e.f. the date his immediate junior Satpal at Sr. No.86 of seniority list was promoted. In fact, petitioner No.1 also claims a relief of promotion from March 2005/April 2005 on the ground that Mr. Satpal his immediate junior was promoted from the said date. State counsel thus pleads that petitioner-Sube Singh would not be entitled to this relief. Since the relief has been granted to petitioner No.1 as well as other petitioners, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. If petitioner No.1-Sube Singh still carries any grievance about the date of his promotion, he may make a representation to the respondents, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous. July 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE 2