JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (ORAL)--We have heard learned counsel and proceed to dispose of the present appeal.

2. The appellant preferred W.P. (C) No. 7249/2002 to seek successive promotions to the posts of PGT, Vice-Principal and Principal in the respondent no.3 school. She also sought quashing of promotions granted to respondents No.4 & 5 who were also serving in the respondent no.3 school. She also prayed for compensation from the respondents in her writ petition.

3. The writ petition was preferred, as noted above, in the year 2002. It appears that the said writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge for hearing on 23.01.2017. On the said date, the learned Single Judge after hearing submissions of learned counsel, apparently, was of the view that the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner were lacking and there were no averments found in her writ petition to show that she satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion to the higher posts. It was also not disclosed as to what were the norms for promotion, i.e. whether promotions were automatic. Accordingly, the learned Judge put it to the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that it would be advisable not to