Kuldeep Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8536-2020 Decided on : 24.06.2020 Kuldeep Singh and others . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (Oral) Due to the outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the instant case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P2), issued by respondent No.3, whereby, the promotions of the petitioners as Center Head Teachers from Head Teachers, vide order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-1), were postponed/suspended.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the promotion of the petitioners was postponed/suspended vide impugned order dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P-2), even though, they were entitled for promotion under 75% quota from the Head Teachers to Center Head Teachers, as per the Punjab State Education Class-3 (Primary School Cadre) Services Rules, 2018. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the reason given for postponing the promotions of the petitioners in the impugned order (Annexure P-2) was that there had been agitations raised by the General Category Welfare Association, Sangrur and SC/BC Teachers Union District Sangrur, which had led to some contradictions. 3.

Heard.

4.

No doubt promotion is a valuable right of every person, but the same JAWALA RAM 2020.06.25 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-8536-2020 - 2 - cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As per the impugned order (Annexure P-2) and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident that the promotions so made on 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) were only postponed and not scrapped.

5.

In the circumstances, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners, which would warrant the interference of this Court to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227of the Constitution of India at this stage.

6.

Dismissed.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE June 24, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2020.06.25 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh