IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.7437 of 2008 Date of decision : May 12, 2011 Shiksha Sood …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has challenged the action of respondents of promoting her juniors as Head Teachers, ignoring her claim for promotion, despite the fact that she was eligible for promotion and fell in the zone of consideration for such promotion. 3. Petitioner was appointed as JBT in the year 1965, on temporary basis. Her services were regularized in May, 1967. In the year 1999, she came to know that JBTs, who were much junior to her, had been promoted, as Head Teachers. She made a representation on 25th April, 1999, copy Annexure A-2, but got no response. She made another representation on 31st January, 2000, copy Annexure A-3. Again, there was no response. In March, 2000, another Order of promotions of JBTs to the posts of Head Teachers Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… was issued. Petitioner’s name did not figure, even in that Order. Copy of that Order is Annexure A-4. Then she filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents to promote her as Head Teacher from 27th November, 1996, when some JBTs, junior to her, were promoted, for the first time. On the abolition of the said Tribunal, in the year 2008, the matter has come to this Court. It has been registered as CWP(T) No.7437 of 2008, with the Registry of this Court. 4. Respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that the petitioner had been promoted as Head Teacher, vide Order dated 27th November, 1996, Copy Annexure A-1, and the Order had been duly conveyed to her through Block Primary Education Officer and despite the Order having been conveyed to her she did not join and that was treated as her having forgone promotion and because of that she rendered herself ineligible for further promotion, for a period of five years. That is why her name does not figure in Office Order dated 30th March, 2000, copy Annexure A-4. 5. Respondents did not place on record any material, showing that the Order of promotion dated 27th November, 1996, Copy Annexure A-1, had been brought to the notice of the petitioner or had been communicated to her by the Block Primary Education Officer. So, the respondents were required to produce the record, indicating …3… that the Order had been communicated to the petitioner by Block Primary Education Officer. They have not produced any record. 6. Admittedly, copy of Order Annexure A-1 (which is dated 27th November, 1996) had not been sent to the petitioner. Petitioner’s case is that she was posted, at that time, in Senior Secondary School, Rajpur and that that school did not come under the supervisory/administrative control of Block Primary Education Officer of the area. It is also her case that Principal of that school being not under the control of Block Primary Education Officer, copy of Order Annexure A-1 was required to be endorsed to the said Principal and only then the petitioner could have come to know about the issuance of Order Annexure A-1. 7. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that JBTs, even if posted in Senior Secondary School, remain under the supervisory and administrative control of Block Primary Education Officer and, therefore, the Order was not endorsed to the Principal of the Senior Secondary School, but to the concerned Block Primary Education Officer. Even if this submission be accepted, there is absolutely no material on record, indicating that Block Primary Education Officer had conveyed the Order of promotion, copy Annexure A-1, to the petitioner. Not only that the record of Block Primary Education Officer has not been produced, despite a specific direction, even the affidavit of the …4… incumbent of the post of Block Primary Education Officer, at the relevant time, has not been filed. 8. In view of the abovestated position, it cannot be said that the Order, copy Annexure A-1, was communicated to the petitioner or she came to know about it from some other source, within the period mentioned in the Order, for joining at the place of posting, on promotion. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner, who is stated to have by now retired, as having been promoted, vide Order Annexure A-1 and having joined as Head Teacher, i.e. the post to which she was promoted, within the period specified in the Order and to give her all monetary benefits and other consequential benefits, like seniority, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. The Order be complied with before 30th September, 2001. Writ petition stands disposed of. May 12, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J