Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hc Sukhwinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 August, 2010

Author: Ajai Lamba

Bench: Ajai Lamba

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                            CHANDIGARH.



                                      Civil Writ Petition No.15123 of 2009

                               DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 16, 2010



HC SUKHWINDER SINGH & ORS.

                                                     ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                                     .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. SS Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
         Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus questioning the promotion of the private respondents while granting them exemption. It is the asserted fact that seniority is not being followed and pick and choose method is being adopted while giving promotion.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that a Committee has already been constituted by virtue of order passed by this Court in CWP 566 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 4.3.2010. The issues raised by the petitioners can also Civil Writ Petition No.15123 of 2009 2 be looked into by the said Committee.

This petition is disposed of and the matter is relegated to the Committee constituted under the orders passed by this Court in Ranjit Singh's case (supra).

August 16, 2010                                         ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                            JUDGE


1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?