Sheetla Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) That the Memo dated 22.9.1997 may be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the Respondents may be directed not to withdraw promotion given to the applicant as lecturer in public administration. They may further be directed to allow her to continue as Lecturer in Public Administration with all consequential benefits.

It is seen that memorandum dated 22.9.1997 is only a show-cause notice. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had filed a reply also. The contention of the Petitioner is that she had been duly promoted and there was no occasion for withdrawing the promotion. Another contention is that during the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the intervening developments, the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to maintain the promotion. All these aspects the Respondents will have to consider while taking a decision on the reply filed by the Petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second Respondent to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner taking note of the intervening developments. This shall be done expeditiously. Till orders are passed as above, interim orders passed by the Tribunal and continued throughout, will continue.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.