MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner makes a two-fold prayer. Firstly, he prays for a direction to the respondents to fix his seniority in the cadrt- of JBT teachers in accordance with the rules. Secondly, be prays for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer with effect from the date a person junior to him viz. respondeat No.4 has been promoted.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it lias been conceded that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4. As for his claim for promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Centre Head teacher vide order dated August 22, 1983. In spite of repeated reminders, the petitioner did not accept the order of his promotion. He was, therefore, debarred for promotion for a period of two years vide order dated October 24. 1983. As against this, respondent No.4 had accepted his promotion to the post of Centre Head teacher which was ordered on April 30, 1984. On acceptance of this promotion, respondent No.4 had become senior to the petitioner. That being so, he was promoted to the. post of Block Primary Education Officer vide order dated April 4, 1989. The petitioner being junior t,i him was not entitled to be considered.

(3.) Counsel for the parljes have been heard. Admittedly, the promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer is governed by the provisions of the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 1979. According to these rules, JBT teachers are entitled to be considered for piomotion to the post of Block Primary Education ()fficer. In accordance with these i ules, the petitioner was entitled to be considered. Furthermore, it is also not disputed that the post of Centre Head Teacher is not mentioned in the rules. Consequently, even if, it is assumed that the petitioner had voluntarily forgone his promotion to the post of Centre Head teacher, he could not be ignored for promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer. His claim had to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the rules before a person junior to him could be promoted. This was admittedly not done. It appears that a similar matter had come up for consideration before this court in CWP No.2670 of 1991 decided on January 23, IS92. This decision is now Roop Lai vs. State of Punjab,1992 2 RSJ 443. In a similar situation, the claim of the petitioner in that case was up held.