Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Kewal Kishore - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents - Respondent
CWP-26532 of 2023
Decided On : 28-11-2023
Certiorari - Promotion - The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion, directing the authority to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the petitioner's representation and the rules and regulations of the policy, and to pass a speaking order within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition seeking to quash the order granting promotion to the private respondents and rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the petition, setting aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion and directing the authority to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the petitioner's representation and the rules and regulations of the policy, and to pass a speaking order within three months.
Issues: Challenge to order granting promotion, rejection of petitioner's claim for promotion, and the non-speaking nature of the order rejecting the petitioner's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the authority to consider the petitioner's representation and the rules and regulations of the policy, and to pass a speaking order when deciding on the promotion matter.
Final Decision: The order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion was set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the matter, taking into consideration the petitioner's representation and the rules and regulations of the policy, and to pass a speaking order within three months.
VIKAS BAHL, J.
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P-9) vide which promotion has been granted to the private respondents i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5 notionally w.e.f. 01.08.1998, 01.12.1998 and 01.02.1998 respectively. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.2, vide which the claim of the petitioner filed vide representation dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-14) has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent no.2 would show that the same is cryptic and non-speaking and no reference has been made to the detailed averments made in the representation dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-14) and no reference to any rule or regulation of the policy has been made while rejecting the case of the petitioner and has prayed that at any rate, the order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-15) be set aside and respondent no.2 be directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after considering the averments made in the representation dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-14).
3. Learned State counsel has submitted that respondent no.2 would pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the averments made in the representation dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-14), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from today.
4. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present petition is partly allowed and the order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-15) is set aside and respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the averments made in the representation dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-14) and also after taking into consideration the rules and regulations of the policy, by passing a speaking order and the same be done within a period of three months from today.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and respondent no.2 would consider the matter independently, in accordance with law.
Petition partly allowed.
Writ petition seeking implementation of prior court order is misconceived and not maintainable.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition with the liberty to pursue alternative remedies in a competent civil court.
The court upheld the principle that a case becomes infructuous when there is no surviving issue for consideration.
A writ petition can be deemed infructuous if the challenged action has been withdrawn following prior judicial orders.
The court dismissed a writ petition based on the principle of judicial consistency, finding that the issues raised were already adjudicated and upheld in a prior decision of a Co-ordinate Bench invol....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
