The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition concerning the petitioner's unconsidered claim for promotion to Lecturer, issuing an order for authorities to decide her legal notice within two months.
Direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 30.5.2012 within two months of receipt of this certified copy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.11461 of 2013 { 1 }
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 24, 2013
Paramjit Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Sarbjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that her claim for promotion to the post of Lecturer although has been sent on three occasions by the Headmaster of the School to the Director, Public Instructions, but the same has not been considered, rather juniors to the petitioner have been promoted vide order dated 17.5.2012.
Petitioner was appointed as S.S.Mistress on adhoc basis on 29.9.1982. Her services were regularised on 4.4.1985. Respondent No.2 called for the cases for promotion to the posts of Lecturers Political Science. Since the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications, her case for promotion was sent by the Headmaster of
Civil Writ Petition No.11461 of 2013 { 2 }
Government High School, Maan Singh Wala on 22.1.2009 vide despatch No.218 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, again the case of the petitioner was sent, but the claim of the petitioner was not considered and decided. Instead, vide order dated 17.5.2012, large number of persons, who are junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Master/Mistress, have been promoted as Lecturers Political Science, but the petitioner's case has not been considered. Detail of juniors has been given in para No.4 of the writ petition. Petitioner has served a legal notice dated 30.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) upon the respondents, which has, till date, not been decided.
Counsel contends that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., Director, Education Department (Secondary), Punjab and District Education Officer (Secondary), Sri Muktsar Sahib to consider and decide the legal notice dated 30.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) served by the petitioner, within some specified time.
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner and without going into the merit of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., Director, Education Department (Secondary), Punjab and District Education Officer (Secondary), Sri Muktsar Sahib to consider and decide the legal notice dated 30.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Civil Writ Petition No.11461 of 2013 { 3 }
In case the claim of the petitioner is not to be accepted,
then a well reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to
the petitioner forthwith.
May 24, 2013 ramesh
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should examine the merit of the petitioner's promotion claim or issue a direction to the authorities to decide the legal notice.
What direction should the Court issue to Respondents 1 and 2 regarding the consideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion?
Paramjit Kaur
State of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
