INDERJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The sole controversy involved in this petition is, whether the petitioner belongs to the Cadre of Mistress/Headmistress or her option to be retained in. the Lecturer cadre would amount to surrendering her lien on the post of Mistress/Headmistress.

(2.) The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that the petitioner had joined as Mistress of Schools on 11.6.1958. She was confirmed as such on 1.3.1961. Thereafter, on the approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission, she was appointed as temporary Lecturer with effect from 18.5.1964. She continued working as such till 7.1.1972. Her seniority was also fixed vide Annexure P.1 in the cadre of lecturers. On 8.1.1972 she was promoted as Headmistress but in the scale of lecturer. She opted for lecturer grade vide Annexure P.2 on 7.11.1977 and surrendered her lien to the substantive post of Mistress/Headmistress, but no order was passed by the concerned authority. The Director of Public Instruction (Schools) called for the options of Headmistress or Lecturer because promotion to P.E.S. Class II was to be made from both the sources vide Annexures P-4 dated 29.6.1978. The petitioner opted for the lecturer cadre surrendering her lien as Mistress/Headmistress. The respondents kept on sitting over this matter till the petitioner filed the present writ petition and a direction was given by this Court on 25.8.1989 to dispose of the matter. The respondents decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 10.11.1989. The said order reads at under:-

(3.) There appears considerable force in the contention of Mr. R.K.Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had opted to be absorbed as Lecturer after surrendering lien to the post of Mistress/Headmistress, there is no legal justification for the respondents not to accept her option even if she. was working against a temporary post of lecturer as she had done so at her own risk and peril. It is admitted by the respondents that persons junior to the petitioner as lecturer and previously working as Mistress/Headmistress had already been promoted to P.E.S.Class II Posts. Thus, under these circumstances, the conduct of the respondents in not accepting the option Annexure P.4 of the petitioner to surrender her lien against the post of Mistress/Headmistress and option for the lecturer grade is clearly mala fide, obviously in order to debar the petitioner from her promotion to P.E.S.Class II Post. It is stated that the petitioner has by now retired.