IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 19096 of 2006 Date of Decision: 24.3.2009. Smt. Parkash Kumari --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Gurdial Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner and respondent no.5 were serving as Mistresses in Social Sciences. The petitioner was appointed on 17.1.1997, whereas respondent no.5 was appointed on 13.2.1997. Petitioner is admittedly senior to respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 was promoted as Lecturer vide order dated 8.10.2001 (Annexure P-6), whereas the petitioner was not considered for promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner also came to be promoted on 31.10.2003. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking promotion from the date respondent no.5 was promoted, who is admittedly junior to her. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the options were invited for promotion as Lecturers in different subjects up to 7.6.2001. The options were required to be submitted to the District Education Officer. However, the petitioner's option was not received and thus the petitioner could not be considered for promotion. The petitioner has placed on record communication dated 15.10.2000, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the case of the CWP. No. 19096 of 2006 -2- petitioner is complete. Even in the Annexure R-2 letter dated 24.10.2007 from the District Education Officer, Rupnagar to Director Public Instructions, (S.E.), Punjab, Chandigarh, it has been mentioned that the case of the petitioner was not sent by the school from 12.5.1997 to 28.2.2003. It appears that the case of the petitioner was not forwarded by the concerned school, though, from Annexure P-11 referred to above, it is evident that the case of the petitioner was complete and was forwarded to the concerned authority in the year 2000. Under such circumstances, denial of promotion to the petitioner is in violation of the rules enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no legal impediment for promotion to the petitioner, who was/is senior to respondent no.5 and was fully eligible for such promotion. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed and respondents no.1 to 4 are directed to promote the petitioner as Lecturer w.e.f 8.10.2001, the date when the respondent no.5 was promoted and the promotion of the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.2003 shall be deemed to have been made w.e.f 8.10.2001. However, petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit w.e.f 8.10.2001 to 21.10.2003. Her salary and other emoluments will be fixed by giving him the notional benefit of increment/ pay revision, if any, during the said period. Disposed of as such. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 24.3.2009 lucky