C.W.P. No. 18633 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18633 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 15.12.2011 Surjeet Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. T.S. Gujral, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. C.M. No. 17018 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3. Application is allowed and replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3 is taken on record. C.W.P. No. 18633 of 2010 The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 18.8.2010, vide which, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Town Planner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the feeder cadre post of Building Inspector (Technical) and, therefore, he cannot be promoted as C.W.P. No. 18633 of 2010 (O&M) (2) Assistant Town Planner. The case was argued at length and ultimately it was adjourned on the request made by counsel for the respondent-State on the ground that the petitioner never worked as Building Inspector (Technical) and he cannot claim parity with other Sectional Officers, who were promoted as Assistant Town Planner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an experience certificate dated 9.11.2011 issued by Municipal Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, wherein, it has clearly been mentioned that the petitioner is working as Building Inspector (Technical) with Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and is having 15 years of experience as Building Inspector (Technical). Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that if that is the situation as mentioned in the experience certificate, the case of the petitioner would be re-considered. Learned counsel for the respondent- State further submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is not having the qualification of three years diploma, which is the pre-requisite qualification for the post of Building Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mohan Lal, who was also Sectional Officer and was not having three years diploma, had already been promoted as Assistant Town Planner, as only 10 years experience in town planning is required. The petitioner is having 15 years experience as Building Inspector and the case of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on this ground. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the reason mentioned in the impugned rejection order, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Town Planner has wrongly been declined as in the impugned order, only it has been mentioned that the C.W.P. No. 18633 of 2010 (O&M) (3) petitioner does not belong to the feeder cadre post of Building Inspector (Technical), whereas, in the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is working as Building Inspector in the Municipal Corporation, which is contrary to the stand taken by the respondents. Keeping in view the facts as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 18.8.2010 is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in view of the qualification and experience as mentioned in the experience certificate in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed in the petition, the necessary relief be granted to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by any action of the respondents, he is at liberty to challenge the same. December 15, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE