IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.16851 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 09, 2011. Devinder Kumar Berry, .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Pupneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer working in the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, who was transferred from the Divisional Office, Golewala Division, Ferozepur to the office of the CWP No.16851 of 2011 [2] Planning and Designing Studies, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P-1) against a vacancy caused due to the retirement of one Parlad Kumar, Junior Engineer. It is averred that the petitioner is not permitted to join at Chandigarh on the plea that the above-stated vacancy has already been consumed with the transfer of one Harjeet Singh, Junior Engineer on 2.4.2011. The petitioner is running from pillar to post but has not been permitted to join the duties. The above stated facts have been acknowledged by the Director, Planning and Design Studies, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his letter dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P-2) sent to the Chief Engineer/Drainage, Irrigation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein it has been requested that the petitioner may be allowed to be adjusted against one of the two newly sanctioned posts. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is imperative upon the respondents to take some decision with regard to the posting of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the recommendation received from respondent No.3, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. September 09, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE