IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 1245 Sukhdev Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. dated 17.07.2009 by which promotion of might not even be surviving due to the efflux of time, 2. filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, dated 03.07.2012, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum benchmark of 10 marks required for promotion to Group only 7 marks in th additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Employment Generation and Training Department, dated 04.10.2012, in compliance to the order dated 10.09.2012, from 2002-03 to 3. revived by demonstrating that the 22.05.2025 parveen kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhdev Singh Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY None for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated 17.07.2009 by which promotion of the petitioner has been denied, might not even be surviving due to the efflux of time, Learned State counsel refers to para 2 of written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, dated 03.07.2012, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum benchmark of 10 marks required for promotion to Group only 7 marks in the ACRs for the years 2006 to additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Employment Generation and Training Department, dated 04.10.2012, in compliance to the order dated 10.09.2012, appending therewith the ACRs of the petitioner right 03 to 2010-11, to which there was no counter filed. Disposed of, reserving the petitioner with a liberty to get it revived by demonstrating that the lis still subsists. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-96-2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.05.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order the petitioner has been denied, might not even be surviving due to the efflux of time, Learned State counsel refers to para 2 of written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, dated 03.07.2012, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum benchmark of 10 marks required for promotion to Group-B post as he had secured e ACRs for the years 2006 to 2011 and in para 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Employment Generation and Training Department, dated 04.10.2012, in compliance to the order appending therewith the ACRs of the petitioner right , to which there was no counter filed. Disposed of, reserving the petitioner with a liberty to get it still subsists. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.23 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.