RANJIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH & ANR.
LAWS(P&H)-2016-11-10
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 07,2016

RANJIT KUMAR JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Punjab And Haryana High Court, Chandigarh And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT,J. - (1.) The petitioner is a member of Punjab Superior Judicial Service and is presently posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chandigarh. He seeks quashing of the communications dated 28.07.2009 (P4) and dated 30.06.2014 (P7), vide which his representations dated 24.02.2009 and 01.05.2014 seeking retrospective promotion as Additional District & Sessions Judge from the year 2008, against out-of-turn promotion quota, have been declined by the High Court. A consequential direction for such retrospective promotion on the strength of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. vs. UP Public Service Commission & Ors. (2008 ) 17 SCC 703 is also sought.
(2.) Facts may be noticed briefly.
(3.) The petitioner was appointed to Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as a Sub Judge on 14.12.1994. He was promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) in September, 2001. Appointment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service is regulated under the Rules known as "Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007" (in short, 'the 2007 Rules'). Rule 2(c) of these Rules defines 'direct appointees' to mean the officers appointed to the Service under Clause (c) of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7. Rule 2(f) defines 'out- of-turn promotee officers' to mean the officers promoted under Clause (b) of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 and according to Rule 2(g), 'promotee officers' means the officers appointed under Clause (a) of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 of these Rules.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.