Tilak Raj And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Tilak Raj and another ...Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate for Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

None for respondents No.7 to 9.

***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.

In spite of rejecting the prayer for adjournment and asking learned counsel appearing for the appellants to argue the case, he has refused to argue the matter. We even asked him to make call to his senior for which also he did not take any step.

2.

The interim order dated 17.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. The order passed in the earlier writ petition bearing CWP No.13987 of 2006 was only to the extent to maintain status quo with regard to the status of the petitioner as it exists on that day.

-2Thus, there was no order staying further promotions on the post of the Deputy Superintendent which was allowed to be conducted. Learned Single Judge, therefore, after considering all the aspects, passed the following order:- "

In my opinion, an order already having been passed by the Division Bench in CWP No.1398 of 2006 on August 10,2007, that all promotions would abide by the final decision in that writ petition, though of course that was at the stage of promotion of Clerks to Assistants and the present dispute is at the stage of promotion to the posts of Deputy Superintendents / Superintendents, the aforesaid order of this Court dated December 27, 2017, needs to be clarified to the extent that the promotions would be made as per the graduation / seniority list circulated (Annexures P-12, P-13 and P-13A), subject of course to final out come of this petition.

Ordered according."

3.

The order is ad-interim by nature and the writ petition bearing CWP No.29325 of 2017 is pending. In our opinion, in such cases, where the writ petition is pending and the parties are before the Single Judge, LPA would not be maintainable unless the order is of such a nature which grants permanent final relief to any of the parties. The LPA is misconceived. The interim order passed by this Court dated 02.08.2018 was based only on a misrepresentative statement of the appellants. We, therefore, vacate our interim order dated 02.08.2018 and also consequently, dismiss this appeal with liberty to contest the writ petition before learned Single Judge. The parties to lis shall advance their arguments and we

-3request learned Single Judge to decide the case on merits without being influenced by our order.

4.

All the pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE 20.03.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No