SIKANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for his promotion as Superintendent Grade-II has been rejected on the ground that he has already retired from service.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case, as made out in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Department of Education, Punjab on 01.04.1977 on regular basis. He was further promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f 21.10.1992 and had retired as such on 30.06.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. The seniority of the Clerks working in the Sub Office of the Education Department Punjab was maintained at State level. The Director Public Instructions (SE), Punjab was the appointing and controlling authority. The next avenue of promotion from the post of Clerk was to that of Assistant and the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f 06.06.1997. Thereafter, the names of eligible candidates were called for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. The petitioner submitted his requisite documents by considering himself to be qualified and eligible for the post of Superintendent Grade-II but he was not considered, whereas, he was recommended by respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other Senior Assistants submitted a representation but no action was taken thereupon. Ultimately, the petitioner along with one Daljit Singh Kohli filed CWP No.5642 of 2010 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. In case, he was found to be entitled then to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

(3.) In pursuance to aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide order dated 14.10.2010 on the ground that he had already retired from service.