High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19320/2019disposed of

Meenakshi v. State Of Haryana And ANR

2019-10-29Mr. Justice Amit Rawal2 pages

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.10.31 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19320-2019 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19320-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.10.2019 Meenakshi ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Minderjeet Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the inaction of respondents for not promoting the petitioner despite the vacancy of 388 posts out of total 5548 posts meant for promotion for the post of Elementary School Education Head Masters, on the premise, that person junior to her has been promoted. Further writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from the date when other similarly situated persons have been promoted. In this regard, had submitted representation dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P-9), but there is no adherence thereto. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that she will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2-Director General, Elementary Education, Haryana, to consider the representation dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P-9) keeping in view judgment dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.10.31 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19320-2019 (O&M) P-10), within a stipulated period.

Without going into the merits and demerits of the claim of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2, to consider the representation dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P-9) keeping in view judgment dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P-10), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall pass a speaking order thereon after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and taking into consideration judicial precedents as well, failing which, respondent No.2, shall be liable to pay costs of `25,000/- to petitioner. This condition of imposing costs is only to prevent petitioner to run from pillar to post and avail remedy of contempt in case of noncompliance of directions issued by this Court. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE 29.10.2019 Yogesh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No