IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20081 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 23, 2009 Kaur Singh & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion as Lecturer (School Cadre) in their respective subjects in the light of Letter/ Instructions dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue is also covered by CWP No.20081 of 2009 [2] judgment dated 26.8.2009 rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11574 of 2009, `Sukhdev Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & others’, placed on record as Annexure P-5. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copy of the petition has been handed over to him. On request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today itself. It has been brought out by learned counsel for the petitioners that cases of the petitioners are ripe for consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). Promotion is not being given in view of Annexure P-2 (Para 2). Learned counsel contends that the respondents have issued Instructions dated 21.8.2009, placed on record as Annexure P-3, under which cases of the petitioners are required to be considered. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in case, poor result of the students taught by the petitioners is the only impediment in promotion of the petitioners, CWP No.20081 of 2009 [3] surely, the petitioners would be entitled to promotion in terms of Annexure P-3. I have considered the issue. Annexure P-2 (Para 2) reads as under:- “2. The concerned employees whose record of annual reports is not found to be correct and the results are less than 50% /minus or the qualifications are not complete and they are not found eligible for promotion, their details have been given in the separate list (Annexure-A).” Letter/Instructions dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) issued by Government of Punjab, Department of School Education reads as under:- “Subject: Consideration of results of classes taught by teachers while promoting him/her to the next higher post. Reference on the subject noted above. 2. The matter has been reconsidered and it has been decided to withdraw the instructions contained in Memo No.15/46/2004-2 Edu 2/12766 dated 9.6.2005 being contrary to the provisions of Punjab State Education Service-III (Service Cadre) Service Rules 1978. 3. It is made clear that the cases of all employees who have been ignored for promotion earlier this account should be reviewed. 4. This is issued with the approval of Secretary, School Education.” [SIC] Considering the totality of facts and circumstances emanating from the above, I am of the opinion that in case the petitioners have been denied consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) only on the ground of poor result of the students taught by CWP No.20081 of 2009 [4] them, the cases of the petitioners need to be considered in the context of Instructions dated 21.8.2009 extracted above. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the cases of the petitioners in the context of Instructions dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-3). In case, poor result of the students is the only impediment, the requisite relief would be granted to the petitioners with effect from the date juniors to the petitioners have been promoted, with all consequential benefits. However, if any other person is affected by virtue of orders passed in regard to the petitioners, principle of nature justice would be observed. In case, there is any other impediment in promotion, the respondents would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as warranted by facts and law. (AJAI LAMBA) December 23, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?