S P FRANCIS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the last two dates, no one has been appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Dasti notices were served on the counsel for the said respondents but there is no appearance. In these circumstances, there is no option but to proceed ex-parte against the respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) AFTER hearing the matter on 31st October, 2007, this Court had directed that a Departmental Promotional Committee meeting should be held and the petitioner along with petitioner in WP (C) No. 8000/2007 and other eligible candidates should be considered for promotion to the post of PGT (History ). Order dated 31st October, 2007 shows that it was a consent order as the respondents including respondents 2 and 3 had given assurance to the Court that the petitioner would be considered for appointment to the post of PGT (History)whenever Departmental Promotional Committee meeting was held.

(3.) IN the earlier Order dated 14. 9. 2007 Department of Education had clarified that there was no bar and the petitioner would be considered for appointment to the post of PGT (History) as he has done his Post Graduation in history. Accordingly, Department of Education has changed its earlier stand that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment to the post of pgt (History) as he had not studied History either in the school or at the graduation. The said stand had been taken by the nominee of the Directorate of education in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24. 7. 2002.