27.02.2025 Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab an jab and others
Case Details
CWP-9692-2015 ( 2015 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA UNJAB & HARYANA IN T ARH AT CHANDIGARH 204 CWP-9692-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Karamjit Singh … Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab an jab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ***** ***** Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for th Present : Mr. e for the petitioner. AN CHAUDHARY
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punja Mr. S , Punjab. ***** ***** AMAN CHAUDH AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition is Praye ated ition is for quashing the order dated 11.09.2014 where wherein claim of the petitioner for pro urer or promotion to the post of Lecturer in Biology w.e.f. t w.e.f. the date of respondent No.5 wh een .5 who was junior to him, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Scien The p and s Science Master on 24.11.1987 and during service ac ice acquired the higher qualificatio fication of MSC (Zoology) in 1st Division, whereaf hereafter he became entitled for pro hool for promotion as Lecturer (School Cadre) in the sub e subject of Biology. He belongs to ithin to Ramdassia Caste falls within the Schedule Cas le Caste declared by the Government is a nment where respondent No.5 is a General Category tegory candidate who was appointed o him inted on 24.11.1987 along with him but petitioner bein being elder in age having been co een considered senior, was granted seniority No.1358 584 while he was 13737. The said d on e said respondent was promoted on 12.08.1997 and p and petitioner was not considered ev duly red even though his case was duly forwarded vide l vide letter No.165/07 dated 17.09.1 een 7.09.1997, a fact which has been ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.28 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9692-2015 ( 2015 (O&M) 2 admitted in the wr the written statement and discernible f left nible from Annexure R1/2. The left out cases from eligible Masters and Mistresses 987 resses appointed w.e.f. 24.11.1987 were again called called vide letter No.1/2-1997-SE1(3 uant E1(3-5) dated 07.08.1998, pursuant whereto vide lette e letter No.10/99 dated 13.01.1999 wa ands 99 was again sent which also stands fortified by Annex Annexure R1/3 appended with the wr the written statement. Subsequently, in the year 2007, , it was on the case having been sent been invited for promotion was sent vide dispatch No. ch No.2450 dated 20.09.2007 (Annex oner Annexure R1/4) but the petitioner was not conside onsidered and finally promoted vi ted vide order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P5). Th 5). The solitary reason that has come
Decision
er is come forth in the impugned order is delay which is ap is apparently belied from the written written statement as also annexures appended therewit erewith showing that his case was dul 7 to as duly recommended from 1997 to 2007 but finally co ally considered in the year 2009. No r t out . No reasons have been brought out of his non-consid consideration at the time when his was n his junior/respondent No.5 was promoted. Relianc eliance is placed on the judgment pa han passed in the case of Darshan Dass and others v thers vs. State of Punjab and others, d on thers, CWP-7119-2010, decided on 22.04.2010, releva relevant of which reads thus:- “Hav “Having heard learned counsel for th the nature of relief sought in th the n appro appropriate to dispose of the same w No.1 No.1 to call for the records and petitioners for promotion to the post peti with with the aforesaid Service Rules thereu thereunder and if the plea of the peti already been promoted is found to alread petiti itioners’ claim for such promotio perio period of four months from the date o this order. Suffice it to observe tha this o eligible, suitable and entitled to, ne eligib shall shall also be passed within the afo consequential benefits.” conse l for the petitioners and considering ring it in this writ petition, I deem it ame with a direction to respondent dent s and consider the claim of the the ance e posts of Principals in accordance Rules and the quota prescribed ibed e petitioners that their juniors have ave the und to be correct, to consider the omotion from due dates, within a in a date of receiving a certified copy of y of und ve that if the petitioners are found ions to, necessary orders of promotions with he aforesaid stipulated period with ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.28 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9692-2015 ( 2015 (O&M) 3 3. Recapitulating the exposition of law Recap h of f law by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supre Supreme Court in Ajit Singh vs. St CC vs. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209, while laying ying emphasis on Articles 14 and n of 4 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, it was held s held that if a person who satisfies the a for ies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but sti but still is not considered for promot lear promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/he his/her fundamental right. The same jay same has been reiterated in Ajay Kumar Shukla a ukla and Ors. vs. Arvind Rai and SC i and Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195. 4. The aforesaid facts having been brou The a n brought out, during the course of hearing, learned S rned State counsel, on instructions, sta shall ns, states that the respondents shall reconsider and dec nd decide the claim of the petitioner, ioner, in accordance with the Rules, within a period o riod of 4 months, which this Court the Court has no reason to believe the authorities would ould not address in a just, fair and rea nd reasonable manner. 5. 6. The aforesaid satisfies the learned cou The a ed counsel for the petitioner. The matter stands disposed of accor The m er is accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, gr ed, grant the benefit forthwith. Need are . Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his int his interest, the same may be passed y of assed after granting opportunity of hearing to him an im and shall contain reasons, whereu seek whereupon he shall be free to seek legal redress there s thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 27.02.2025 ashok Whether speaking Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.28 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document