JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J. 

1. As per office report, notice issued to respondent No.1 has been served, however, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:-

i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued quashing the impugned proceedings/order dated: 10.10.2022 (P-7) vide which the respondent No.1 in File No. S-8/Punjab-6/2022/SSW-1 has stayed all further promotions from the post of Principal to the post of District Education Officer in the respondent No.2 department in grave violation of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association and others Vs. Union of India and others”, (1996) 6 SCC 606, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that the respondent No.1 Commission has no power to issue interim injunctions and also being violative of Rule 7.4.1 (e) and (f) of the “Rules of procedure of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes”, which makes it clear that no complaint with regard to any subjudiced matter and Cases pending in Courts or cases in which a Court has already given its final verdict be taken up afresh with the Commission.

ii) That further a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners for regular promotion to the post of District Education Officer from the date the petitioners were granted posting orders against the vacant regular sanctioned posts of District Education Officers, along with all consequential benefits, including pay of District Education Officer from the date the petitioners are working as District Education Officers.

iii) That further a writ in the nature of Prohibition be issued restraining the respondent No.1 from interfering in the matters pending before this Hon’ble Court or decided by this Hon’ble Court, as respondent No.1 cannot act as Appellate Court to the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner No.2 was promoted to the post of District Education Officer, vide order dated 14.02.2024, and petitioners No.3 to 5 were promoted to the said post, vide orders dated 26.01.2024, and petitioners No.1 and 6 have retired from service on attaining their age of superannuation, on 31.07.2023 and 31.10.2023 respectively. He further submits that petitioners were working as senior-most Principals with the respondent-department and they were assigned the duties of the promotional post of District Education Officer, vide separate orders from 2018 to 2022. The chart to this effect has been reproduced in para 6 of the petition, which reads as under:-

He further submits that since the petitioners have performed the duties of the post of District Education Officer, therefore, they are entitled for the pay and allowances of the said post.

4. Learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in para 4 of the reply filed by way of short affidavit of Harnek Singh, Under Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of School Education, on behalf of respondent No.2, submits that though the petitioners were temporarily deputed as District Education Officers in their respective districts in order to run the administration, but however, they are not entitled for the pay and allowance of the said post.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioners were the senior-most Principals and were assigned the duties of the next higher post of District Education Officer and they have performed their duties on the higher post till they were regularly promoted, in the case of petitioners No.2 to 5 and till date of retirement in the case of petitioners No.1 and 6.

7. Keeping in view the above, the petitioners, who had admittedly performed the du