JUDGMENT
1. In this petition the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for promoting the petitioner to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant w.e.f. 17.07.1975. The basis of the prayer is a resolution passed on 25.10.1982 where the case for promotion of the petitioner as Head Clerk-cum-Assistant was considered. In the said resolution, it was pointed out that the case of the petitioner was not being considered for promotion in view of a court case being Suit No. 22/1975 which was pursued by him from 04.07.1975. It is recorded in the resolution that on the persuasion of Mrs. S. Singh, Nominee Director of the Managing Committee, the petitioner agreed not to press for his promotion through the court or otherwise and that he further agreed to approach the court for disposal of the pending case. The Managing Committee thereupon resolved as under:-
“Resolved that Shri. R.P. Gupta-UDC be promoted as Head Clerk-cum-Assistant in the scale of Rs.425-700/- w.e.f. 17.07.1975, i.e., the date on which he completes 3 years (continuous) service in this school. It is further decided that case of promotion be sent to the Deptt. of Education for according necessary approval after Mr. Gupta applies to the court to dispose of his case accordingly.”
2. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the court in which the case was pending and after the statements of the parties were recorded, the court passed an order dated 24.01.1983 which reads as under:
“In view of the statements of the parties (appellant Ram Prasad Gupta and Secretary of Defdt No.2), appeal is decided in terms of the statement and suit is decreed as compromised to the effect that Ram Prasad Gupta shall be deemed to have been promoted with effect from 15th May 1975 as Head Clerk-cum-Assistant in Jagat Vidya Sanatan Dharm Girls Sr. Secondary School, without affecting right of any third party.”
3. It is on the basis of this resolution and the consequent order of the Court that the petitioner is seeking the prayers in the petition. It is the petitioner’s submission that the effect of the compromise that was recorded is that the petitioner stood promoted to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant and the promotion having been approved earlier by the respondent no.3 and specifically by the Nominee Director, Managing Committee of the said school present in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 25.10.1982, the respondent no.3 cannot now, at this stage turn around from the stand already taken when in point of law there is no bar against the implementation of the said stand.
4. In this petition the petitioner is also seeking for a Writ direction or order for quashing the respondent no.3’s letter no.779 dated 16.05.1989 directing the holding of a Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that, once the matter had been examined by the Managing Committee of the school in the presence of the Nominee of the respondent no.3 and a resolution had been passed to the effect whereby the petitioner had been promoted w.e.f. 17.07.1975 to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant and that subsequently this arrangement had also been formalised in the form of the Court Order recorded on 24.01.1983, there is no reason whatsoever for the non-implementation of the said resolution and Order of the Court. It is their further submission that the respondent nos. 1-3 and in particular respondent no.3 has been dragging its feet and for no valid or cogent reason is not implementing the said resolution and order by not promoting the petitioner.
5. Although nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents today, I have gone through the pleadings and have considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the plaintiff and am in agreement with the said arguments and find that there is no reason whatsoever for the non-implementation of the said resolution dated 25.10.1982 and the Order of the Court dated 24.01.1983 and direct that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant w.e.f. 17.07.1975. Consequently, the letter vide no. 779 dated 16.05.1989 is also quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.