1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1917/2009 State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs Smt. Manorama Asopa & Anr. DATE OF ORDER: 24.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Dr. GR Kalla, Government Advocate. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the respondent no.1. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent no.1 was holding the post of Headmistress and the post of Headmistress was upgraded to the post of Principal by the Government order dated 27th Sept., 1989. The respondent no.1 was not put on that upgraded post because of pendency of the inquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and that inquiry was subsequently dropped. The respondent's contention was that up-gradation of post is not promotion and non-giving the post of the Principal to the respondent merely on ground of pendency of inquiry cannot be justified. Even if respondent was not placed on the post of Principal due to inquiry against her then, after dropping of inquiry, she was entitled to post of Principal from back date. The respondent approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur by preferring the appeal no.340/1999. That 2 appeal was allowed by order date 15.12.2006. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that since at the relevant time an inquiry was pending against the respondent, therefore, her case was not considered by the concerned authority and she was not given posting on the post of Principal. It is submitted that in the next year the respondent was given his post of Principal. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts. Mere pendency of an inquiry cannot take away the right of promotion and here in this case the post itself was upgraded and, therefore, the respondent could not have been denied the post of Principal and further more when inquiry has already been dropped. The respondent cannot ranks junior to the persons who were junior to the respondent because of pendency of inquiry at relevant time only and wherein the petitioner has not been punished and the inquiry has already been dropped. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order passed by the tribunal. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-