IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17267 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.1.2009. Amarjit Singh and another ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners are working as clerks in the office of Director Public Instruction (Secondary Education), Punjab. The State Govt. vide its circular dated 15.9.1982 wrote to all the Heads of the Departments for creation of channel of promotion in all cadres. Accordingly, vide circular dated 26.9.2001 department created promotional avenues for the Ministerial Staff (non-teaching) by creating 10% quota for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress. Under the aforesaid circular such of the employees, who have cleared the two years probation period and have passed B.A. B.Ed Examination may be considered for promotion against 10% quota. Their cases were required to be sent to the Directorate upto 31.1.2006. Petitioners fall in the aforesaid cadre of clerks and claimed to be fully qualified under the aforesaid circular for consideration for promotion against 10% quota. The names of the petitioners were forwarded by the Head of the Institution. Name of petitioner no.1 was forwarded vide CWP No. 17267 of 2007 -2- letter dated 25.9.2006, whereas the name of petitioner no.2 was also forwarded vide letter dated 31.8.2007. Respondents no.5 and 6 who were later on deleted from the array of respondents were appointed as Master in Hindi vide order dated 24.8.2007 ignoring the seniority of the petitioners in the feeding channel so created. The only stand of the respondents is that the names of the petitioners were required to be forwarded before the cut of date i.e. 15.1.2006 and since their names were not forwarded within the prescribed period, they were not considered. This stand of the respondents is belied from the circular dated 7th December, 2005, wherein the cut of date is January 15, 2006. The names were to be forwarded by the concerned Head of Department and the D.E.O from the eligible candidates on the basis of their seniority. If, there is lapse on the part of the officer, forwarding the names of the petitioners, they cannot be made to suffer. The non- consideration of the petitioners for promotion cannot be attributed to the petitioners in any manner. It is settled law that the promotion is not a right, however, every Govt. servant has a right to be considered for promotion. In the present case even the consideration has been denied to the petitioners. Petitioners impleaded the juniors, who were promoted over and above them as respondents no.5 and 6 in this petition. Their names were subsequently deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 28.1.2008 at the instance of the petitioners. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners be considered against the available vacancies and if, there is no vacancy available at present within 10% quota, the petitioners will have no right of such consideration. CWP No. 17267 of 2007 -3- In view of the above statement, this petition is disposed of with the direction to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Masters against the available vacancies under 10% quota subject to their eligibility and qualifications. If, the petitioners are found qualified, eligible and the vacancies are available, they may be granted promotion. This shall not affect the seniority of the private respondents, whose names were deleted at the instance of the petitioners. In the event no vacancy under the quota is available, petitioners shall not be entitled for such promotion. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.1.2009 lucky