IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 13594 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: August 31, 2009
Devinder Kaur .........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner
for promotion as Head Mistress and to promote her as Head Mistress in
view of the qualification of the petitioner.
It has been pleaded that the petitioner joined department of
Education, Punjab as S.S. Mistress on 04.12.1973. Her services were
regularized on 01.04.1977. In March 2006, cases from women category
were called for consideration for promotion to the post of Head Mistress.
The case of the petitioner was submitted alongwith all relevant details for
promotion. The name of the petitioner, however, does not find mention in
the list of persons promoted. The matter was pursued not only by the
petitioner but by the other authorities also. It has been asserted that the
C.W.P. No. 13594 of 2008 -2-
petitioner is eligible in all regards in so much as the annual confidential
reports of the petitioner are good. It has been asserted that pick and choose
method has been adopted by the respondents.
Reply has been filed by way of short affidavit of Ms. Harcharanjit
Kaur Brar, Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab
on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4. It has been brought out that vide Punjab
Government order dated 16.12.2008, the petitioner has been promoted as
Head Mistress w.e.f. 16.12.2008 i.e. the date from which juniors to the
petitioner had been promoted. The petitioner has been posted as Head
Mistress in Government High School, Jarjpur (Kapurthala). Despite orders
of promotion and posting, the petitioner has not joined. It has been further
stated that the cause of action does not survive in view of orders of
promotion, placed on record as Annexure R-1.
A perusal of Annexure R-1 i.e. order of promotion of the
petitioner and Annexure R-2 i.e. the order of posting/appointment shows
that cause of action does not survive.
The petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
31.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?