Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe petitioner was working as a Staff Nurse in the Health Department, where she was appointed on 27.6.1985. Her
services were subsequently regularised with effect from May 1986. In the year 2007, respondent No. 2 sought details of Staff Nurses/Nursing
Sisters for their consideration for promotion to the post of Sister-Tutor. Respondent No. 3 was to furnish this detail. The said detail was not
directly sought from the employees, who were aspiring for the promotion. The case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered simply on
the ground that her application was sent late. This is a precise stand now taken in the reply filed before the Court. It is disclosed that respondent
No. 3 was to forward the names of interested eligible Staff Nurses/Nursing Sisters for promotion to the post of Sister-Tutor within seven days
from the date of receipt of communication dated 8.2.2007. This letter was received in the office of Civil Surgeon on 19.2.2007, which was then
circulated on 21.2.2007. The petitioner statedly applied too late and sent her application to respondent No. 3, Civil Surgeon, on 28.3.2007. The
said application was forwarded and received in the office of respondent No. 2 on 14.4.2007. Since it was too late, the case of the petitioner was
not considered for promotion on the post of Sister-Tutor. It is further disclosed that respondent No. 2 promoted the petitioner against the post of
Public Health Nurse on 7.9.2007. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed.
2. The justification to deny consideration to the petitioner is only that her application was received late. Though part of the blame is also attributed
to the petitioner for late submission of her application, but what is to be seen is whether a person has a right of consideration and could such right
of consideration be denied on the ground that the application was received late. Laying down condition that those who are interested for being
considered for promotion should sent their applications within 15 days, would in itself may sound unreasonable. In any case, the applications were
not sought from the employees directly and it was not in their hands to forward the applications by a particular date or time. Once the application,
if any, was to be forwarded by the respondent, Civil Surgeon, the responsibility for late receipt or late sending of the application could not be
assigned to the petitioner as such. Accordingly, the petitioner has apparently not been treated in a fair manner for consideration for promotion to
the post of Sister-Tutor. The consideration for promotion is constitutionally guaranteed right though promotion as such, may not be a such right.
Since the petitioner has been denied consideration of promotion, the prayer made in the writ petition for her consideration deserves to be
considered and allowed.
3. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of
Sister-Tutor from the date any of her junior was so promoted. Let the necessary exercise be completed within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
