IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12654 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 3, 2009 CHUNI LAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P-11), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 16 years of service, has been rejected. Challenge is also to letter dated 28.1.2003 (Annexure P-2). A perusal of order (Annexure P-11) indicates that the claim of Civil Writ Petition No. 12654 of 2009 2 the petitioner for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme has been rejected on the ground that the result of the students taught by the petitioner was not good. Annexure P-2 is a letter on the same lines, passed on the same basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents cannot take into account the result of the students while granting the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this court in CWP 6288 of 2008 (Kiran v. The State of Punjab and others), decided on 3.7.2009, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that, indeed, the matter is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Kiran (supra). Considering the above, this petition is allowed. Order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P-11) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to Assured Career Progression Scheme benefit. The benefit shall not be denied on the ground that the result of the students taught by the petitioner was poor. The necessary decision be taken by the respondents within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. November 3, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?