IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13367 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 14, 2009 Chander Shashi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent- department to promote the petitioner as Head Mistress as a person junior to the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4, has already been promoted as Head Mistress. In short, learned counsel for the respondents contends that it is the admitted CWP No.13367 of 2008 [2] position of the respondents that the petitioner was not promoted on the ground that the results of the students taught by the petitioner were not more than 50%. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure P-10 i.e. judgment dated 21.2.2002 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4757 of 2000 titled `Jasvir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Reference has also been made to a recent judgment dated 26.8.2009 rendered by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.10318 of 2009 titled `Meena Rani vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that indeed the claim of the petitioner for promotion was ignored in view of her poor results. In view of judgments of this Court, the case of the petitioner needs to be considered dehors the results of the petitioner. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, this petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Head Mistress with effect from the date persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted, dehors the results CWP No.13367 of 2008 [3] of the petitioner. It is made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to take note of other relevant factors for promotion namely Annual Confidential Reports etc. (AJAI LAMBA) October 14, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?