PUSHPA USGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition claiming promotion to the next higher post of Principal. The contention of the Petitioner is that she was appointed to the post Upper Division Teacher on 20th December, 1967 and was later on promoted to the post of Lecturer on 22.11.1975 in the pay scale of 350-600. The Petitioner has further stated that no adverse A.C.R., at any point of time, was received by her and in the year 2005 cases for grant of promotion were considered by Respondents and by an order dated 09.05.2005, Respondent No. 4, who is admittedly junior to the Petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Principal. The Petitioner has categorically stated that Respondent No. 4 has initially joined as Upper Division Teacher on 16.1.1968 and as the Petitioner started her service career on 25th December, 1967, she is admittedly senior to Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner has immediately preferred this writ petition challenging her supersession on 27.06.2005.

(2.) Notices were issued by this Court on 6.7.2005 and time was granted to Respondents/State on 30.10.2006, 20.8.2007, 14.11.2007, 28.11.2008. This Court, as no reply was being filed in the matter, has even directed personal appearance of the District Education Officer on 28.11.2008. On 6.1.2009, the District Education Officer has informed this Court that the matter regarding promotion of the Petitioner is under process and again time was granted. Case was thereafter listed on 24.2.2009, 26.2.2009, 22.4.2009, 18.6.2009, 20.7.2009, 16.9.2009, 23.10.2009, 4.12.2009, 16.12.2009 and 25.1.2010. In spite of repeated opportunities, no reply was filed by the Respondents except by stating that the matter is under process and this Court vide order dated 8.3.2010 directed personal appearance of the Commissioner, Bhopal. The Respondents have, now, filed a reply on 13.3.2010 and in the reply, the Respondents have stated that they have granted promotion to the Petitioner with retrospective effect from 9.5.2005.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on the behalf of the Petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the Respondents have deliberately delayed the the matter relating to the promotion of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the present writ petition. He has vehemently argued before this Court that the Petitioner was not promoted on account of the fault on the part of the Respondents, and therefore, she is entitled for back wages as well as all other consequential benefits.