Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19851 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:
9. 9.2013.
Kuldeep Sahai & others --Petitioners Versus The Principal Secretary, Govt.
of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr.Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length.
The petitioners have all retired from the post of Lecturer, Department of School Education, State of Punjab on various dates between the years 2006 to 2008.
The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the claim for promotion to the post of Principal with effect from the date the petitioners acquired eligibility as also with effect from the date the vacancies were available.
The entire case set out on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of Principal under the Punjab Education Service (School & Inspection) Group A Service Rules, 2004 and for considering the cases of the eligible officials the meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee had been called on a number of occasions in the years 2002, 2003 and 2005 but such meetings were postponed on one pretext or the other.
In the meantime, the petitioners retired upon attaining the age of superannuation.
Vide orders dated Lucky 17.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) and 8.5.2012 (Annexure P-2) persons junior to 2013.09.10 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP No.19851 of 2013 (O&M) -2- the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Principal.
It is against such factual backdrop that the prayer has been raised seeking promotion to the post of Principal from the date of acquiring eligibility/date of occurrence of the higher post.
In my considered view the present writ petition is wholly misconceived.
Admittedly, all the petitioneRs.who were members of the Lecturer Cadre, stand retired between the years 2006 to 2008.
Even if, it was to be accepted that the names of the petitioners were liable to be considered by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee to be held in the years 2002/2003 and 2005 and which meetings were postponed, such issue should have been raised and agitated by the petitioners while still in service.
The petitioners chose not to do so.
After a period of 5 to 7 years post retirement, the petitioners are attempting to gain impetus from orders of promotion passed in the year 2011-2012 at Annexures P-1 and P-2, whereby certain employees, who have been reflected as juniors while the petitioners were in service, have not been promoted to the post of Principal.
Such orders of promotion dated 17.10.2011 and 8.5.2012 will not vest with the petitioners any fresh cause of action to raise a claim and prayer as set out in the instant writ petition.
No interference in the matter is called for.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE September 09, 2013.
lucky