IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 21561 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 10, 2009 VINOD KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior 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 mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer with effect from 8.10.2001 i.e. when persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Social Studies Master vide order dated 7.3.1980. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered along with other persons for promotion to the Civil Writ Petition No. 21561 of 2008 2 post of Lecturer in the year 2000. The case of the petitioner was also submitted to the higher authorities. The petitioner was eligible, as per the rules and criteria formulated by the respondents. The order of promotion, however, was somehow not issued. Persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 2007, the matter of promotion of the petitioner was taken up by the respondents. Vide order dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-8), wherein the name of the petitioner finds mention at Sr. No.5, the petitioner has been denied promotion on the ground that the petitioner had been found unfit for promotion to the post of Lecturer. The body of the order (Annexure P-8) indicates that the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been rejected on the ground that the result of the students taught by the petitioner was not positive. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 11574 of 2009 (Sukhdev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 26.8.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that, indeed, instructions have been issued to the effect that the cases of persons, such as the petitioner, be considered for promotion, if the same have been rejected solely on the ground of result of the students. Considering the stand of the respondents, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the Civil Writ Petition No. 21561 of 2008 3 petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Punjabi with effect from the date persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted, dehors the result of the students taught by the petitioner. The respondents would be at liberty to take into account other factors; such as, Annual Confidential Reports, in accordance with the rules/instructions/circulars, issued from time to time. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits. The necessary decision be taken within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of the order. November 10, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?