IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6805 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Vijay Laxmi. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). Though the petition has been filed on the following two prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii) of the petition, yet at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts the claim only qua prayer 7(i): “7(i) That the respondents may be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Head Teacher from the date her juniors were promoted as such with all consequential benefits.” (ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider and promote the applicant for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) from the date when the persons junior to her were so promoted with all consequential benefits.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ...2... 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 3: “That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. Because as per the information received from the Distt. Primary Education Officer, Solan that the applicant was promoted as Head Teacher vide order dated 15.9.1997 the copy of which is also annexed by the applicant as Annexure-A-5 with the present Original Application. According to the terms and conditions of the promotion order the teachers have to join their duty within a period of 15 days from the date of issuing the order, failing which the promotion will be cancelled and no claim of promotion, seniority, pay fixation etc. will be entertained lateron and they shall also be debarred for promotion for a period of 5 years. It is further submitted that vide promotion order as annexure-A-5 the applicant has been posted as Head Teacher in Govt. Primary School Janon (Nalagarh). But as per the information received from the Distt. Primary Education Officer, Solan the place of posting did not suit the applicant and she preferred not to join there within a stipulated period. Therefore the applicant has rightly been debarred for further promotion for a period of 5 years. It is further submitted that as per the information received from the Distt. Primary Education Officer Solan the applicant has been promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher by the Director of Education H.P. Shimla-1 vide order No. EDN-H (2) 7/99- Pro-Jre.(JBTs) dated 12.6.2000 and further posted by the Distt. Primary Education Officer, Solan vide order No. EDN-SLN(E-III)-Pro-JBT/2000- 27943-46 dated 22.2.2001 in Govt. Middle School Bhatoli Kalan and has joined her duties as such.” 3. On 13.09.2010 the following order was passed by this Court in this matter: “It is the petitioner's case that in the office order dated 15.9.1997, it stands wrongly mentioned that petitioner was posted at Primary School, Dharampur Baha whereas as on the date ...3... when this office order was issued she was posted as serving at Primary School, Purla under Parwanoo Centre. It is further her contention that this officer order was never communicated to her. Let the Director of Primary Education shall file an affidavit clarifying the aforesaid position. Needful be done within a period of two weeks from today. List on 4.10.2010.” 4. In pursuance of the above order dated 13.09.2010 a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, para 2 whereof reads as under: “That in this regard, it is submitted that as per information received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Solan, when Annexure-A/5 was issued, the petitioner Smt. Vijay Laxmi was serving in Govt. Primary School, Purla. It is further submitted that the promotion orders in respect of the petitioner wee issued by the office of Deputy Director of elementary Education, Solan and the same were sent to the concerned Block elementary Education Officer and thereafter the promotion orders were sent to the concerned Centre Head Teacher to communicate the same to the individual concerned.” 5. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are somewhat queer. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as JBT Teacher. She was appointed as such vide letter dated 13.09.1968, Annexure A-1. As per seniority list, Annexure A-2, as on 31.12.1995, she figures at serial No. 81 and was shown to be posted as Dharampur. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Head Teacher vide Office Order dated 15th September, 1997, Annexure A-5, wherein she figured at serial No. 7 (seniority serial No. 81) and was shown to be posted in P.S. Dharampur Baha and consequent upon her promotion she was transferred and posted in P.S. Janon ...4... (Nalagarh). However, the fact remains that at that time the petitioner was posted at Purla. According to her, the order of promotion dated 15th September, 1997, Annexure P-5, was never communicated to her. It was apparent on the face of the record that owing to a strange coincidence another JBT teacher with the same name Vijay Laxmi as that of petitioner was at that time working at a place known as Baha, whose name figures in the seniority list, Annexure A-2, at serial No. 203 and since in the order of promotion dated 15th September, 1997, Annexure A-5, against serial No. 7, though the name was mentioned as Vijay Laxmi, which apparently was of the petitioner, yet in the relevant column of the order she was shown to be posted at that time at Primary School Dharampur Baha instead of Purla where she was actually working at the time. It appears that owing to this mistake committed by the concerned authorities while issuing the order of promotion, Annexure A-5, it was a case of mistaken identity. To be explicit, instead of petitioner, who was promoted as Head Teacher vide officer Order dated 15th September, 1997, Annexure A-5, it was another lady teacher of the same name figuring at serial No. 203 of seniority list, Annexure A-2, whose particulars were included in the order of promotion and thus denying the petitioner the benefit of promotion which was due to her in the year 1997. 7. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per information received by him from his client, the aforesaid Smt. Vijay Laxmi JBT Teacher, Government Primary School Baha, who figures at serial No. 203 of the seniority list, ...5... Annexure A-2, also did not, in fact, avail the benefit of promotion wrongly made in her favour. 8. The stand as taken by the respondents in the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 besides being omnibus is general in nature that “the promotion orders in respect of the petitioner were issued by the office of Deputy Director of elementary Education, Solan and the same were sent to the concerned Block elementary Education Officer and thereafter the promotion orders were sent to the concerned Centre Head Teacher to communicate the same to the individual concerned.” Even if it is taken on its face value, it means that order of promotion which, in fact, related to the petitioner was in all probability wrongly communicated to the aforesaid Smt. Vijay Laxmi, JBT Teacher, Government Primary School, Baha, whose name figures at serial No. 203 of the seniority list, Annexure A-2. 9. In view of the above, I am more than satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for. Consequently, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3/competent authority to give effect to the order of promotion in respect of the petitioner, issued vide Office Order dated 15th September, 1997, Annexure A-5, and treat her to have been promoted as Head Teacher for all intents and purposes on and w.e.f. the date of the said order, i.e., 15th September, 1997 and pay to her all the consequential benefits arising out of such promotion within a period of three months from production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month from today alongwith ...6... interest @ 6% p.a, failing which higher interest @ 9% p.a shall be payable. 10. It is made clear that it shall be open to the competent authority to take appropriate action against the concerned officer(s)/official(s) responsible for the above lapse resulting into unnecessary loss to the State Exchequer. 11. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 23rd November, 2010 (virender)