IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.11246 of 2008 Date of decision : May 19, 2011 Smt. Desh Kumari …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Ramesh Thakur & R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner and respondent No.4 Ms Manesh Kumari were working as JBTs in Chamba District, in the year 1996, when a promotion order, copy Annexure A-4, promoting both of them as Head Teachers, was issued. Petitioner was senior to respondent No.4. She was posted in Government Primary School Ather, while respondent No.4 was posted in Government Primary School Chashak. Both of them did not join at their new places of postings and forewent promotion, because their new places of postings, according to them, were terrorist affected areas of Chamba District. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Petitioner’s contention is that respondent No.4 was considered for promotion two years later and was promoted as Head Teacher on 22nd May, 1998 and thereafter she had been promoted, even as Centre Head Teacher, on 27th February, 2002, but the petitioner was debarred from promotion, even as Head Teacher, for five years, on account of her having declined promotion that was made in the year 1996, vide Annexure A-4. She has pleaded that the action of the respondents in not promoting her even as Head Teacher and promoting respondent No.4, who was many steps junior to her, firstly as Head Teacher and then as Centre Head Teacher, though she too declined promotion made vide Annexure A-4, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the reply, respondents have not denied that respondent No.4 was considered and also promoted two years after her declining the promotion and that second promotion had also been given to her, though they have stated that the petitioner has not placed on record any documents, showing that said respondent No.4 had been so promoted. 5. In case respondent No.4, who too had declined the promotion made vide Annexure A-4 was considered for promotion and also promoted, in 1998, as alleged by the petitioner, action of the respondents is clearly …3… violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, because it is not denied by the respondents that respondent No.4 had also declined the promotion, made in 1996, on the same grounds as the petitioner. Therefore, writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondents that the petitioner be treated on par with respondent No.4, in the matter of promotions and in case respondent No.4 had been promoted, as Head Teacher in 1998, petitioner be also considered for such promotion and if found suitable be promoted on and with effect from the same date as respondent No.4 and if she is so promoted, in accordance with the aforesaid direction, she be considered for further promotion also, as Centre Head Teacher and so promoted on and with effect from the date respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of Centre Head Teacher. Order be complied with within three months. Writ petition stands disposed of. May 19, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J