CWP No. 16002 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16002 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 08, 2010 Nirmal Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 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 and promote the petitioner to the post of Principal in Punjab Education Service-II Group-A cadre from the date juniors to the petitioner i.e. respondents no. 5 and 6 have been given promotion vide order dated 15.02.2010. 2. Notice of motion. 3. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. Deputy Advo- cate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents. CWP No. 16002 of 2010 2 5. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of at this stage itself, in view of limited controversy raised. 6. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner belongs to Sched- uled Caste category and joined the Punjab Education Department on the post of JBT Teacher on 03.03.1979. The petitioner, thereafter was selected and appointed as Hindi Lecturer by way of direct recruitment vide appoint- ment letter dated 18.08.1994. The petitioner joined as Lecturer in Hindi on 15.03.1995. Seniority list of Lecturers was issued, wherein the petitioner was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 954 in General Category which was wrong. The error has been corrected by the respondents by way of issuance of order Annexure P-7 dated 07.06.2010. 7. Learned counsel contends that the channel of promotion from the post of Lecturer is to the post of Principal and the criteria therefor is seniority-cum-merit in terms of provisions of Punjab Education Services (School and Inspection) Class-II Rules, 1976. 75% of the posts of Princi- pals are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Lecturers. Subsequently, by virtue of Rules of 2004, all the posts of Principals are to be filled up by way of promotion. 8. Learned counsel contends that on account of wrongly mention- ing the category of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal has not been considered and persons junior to the pe- titioner have been promoted. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner made a representation Annexure P-8 dated 30.07.2010 where- upon, however, no action has been taken. CWP No. 16002 of 2010 3 9. At this stage, writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued as the petitioner made representation recently. The respondents are to be given an opportunity to consider the seniority of the petitioner in the Sched- uled Caste category in the context of right of the petitioner to promotion. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a decision on the representation of the petitioner in view of the issuance of Annexure P-7. 10. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-8 within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the seniority of others is likely to the affected, the respon- dents would give an opportunity to all concerned and thereafter take a deci- sion vide a reasoned order and convey the same to the affected persons. 08.09.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?