Sutantar Kumar Airi v. State Of Punjab And ORS

LPA-462-2017 (O&M) -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-462-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 27, 2017 Sutantar Kumar Airi .....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The controversy in this case pertains to appointment to the post of Director, Agriculture, Punjab. There appears to be no serious dispute that the appointment has to be made strictly in accordance with Punjab Agricultural (Gorup-A) Service Rules, 2013 which have come into force vide Notification dated August 26, 2013.

[2] No regular appointment, however, has been made for the reason that this Court in CWP No.7205 of 2001 passed an order dated May 02, 2002 directing "the post of the Director Agricutlure will not be filled up on regular basis." That interim order is still operative. [3] We are informed that the appellant has moved an application in the above-stated writ petition to vacate the stay and dispose of the same as Meenu 2017.03.30 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

LPA-462-2017 (O&M) -2infructuous as not the writ petitioners of that case have already retired from service and a new set of Rules notified in the year 2013 has come into force. There is no grievance thus, which survives for adjudication on merits. [4] In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the entire controversy will come to rest once CWP No.7205 of 2001 is taken up and disposed of in the light of subsequent events. [5] Registry is accordingly directed to list the miscellaneous application alongwith the main case, i.e. CWP No.7205 of 2001 in the urgent list on 03.04.2017 as per roster.

[6] In view of the above directions, learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal on merits. [7] Disposed of accordingly.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE March 27, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.03.30 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh