Chandigarh Administration Vs. Shri Sumesh
Kumar [1996] INSC 1316 (24
October 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.B. Pattanaik Pattanik, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
These
Appeals by Special Leave are directed against different orders of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh cancelling the notices issued by
the appellant to the respondents and further directing the appellant not to
revert the respondents from the promoted post. But the question of law involved
being one and the same they were heard together and are being disposed of by
the common judgment. The short question that arises for consideration is
whether promotions of these respondents on different dates in the year 1993 to
the posts of Masters/Mistress (TGTs) is contrary to the Statutory Recruitment,
Rules framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise
of powers conferred by proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution called the
Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) Group 'C' Recruitment Rules, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as "The Recruitment Rules").
We
will consider the facts in one case for deciding the point in issue, namely, in
the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No 11122 of 1996 which is
directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
dated 12.10.1995 in O.A. No. 138/CH/95. In the said case Suresh Kumar, the
respondent was a classical teacher having been appointed as a Drawing teacher
on 30th March, 1972. He was promoted alongwith three
others to the post of Social Studies Master on officiating basis on the
recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee by order dated 24th April, 1993. The said post of Social Studies
Master borne in the School Cadre in Group 'C' and recruitment thereto since
1991 is governed by the Statutory Recruitment Rules. The appellant being of the
opinion that the said promotion is contrary to the Recruitment Rules issued
notice to the respondents as to why the said promotion be not withdrawn as the
Recruitment Rules did not provide for promotion to the post of Master/mistress
from amongst the Classical teachers.
The
notice was issued on 3rd
January, 1995. The
respondents though filed a representation pursuant to the notice issued by the
appellant but before any decision could be taken by the appellant the said
respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the prayer that
show cause notice issued by the appellant be quashed and the appellant be
restrained from cancelling/withdrawing the promotion given to the respondents
to the post of Social Studies Master on 29th April, 1993. The appellant
appeared before the Tribunal and reiterated its stand to the effect that the
Recruitment Rules do not provide for promotional avenue to the post of Master
from amongst the Classical and vernacular instructors and, therefore, the
promotion having been made after the Rules came into force the said promotion
is invalid and inoperative. It was also contended that prior to 1991 Reules
coming into force appointments to the post of Master within Union Territory of Chandigarh
were being made by direct recruitment and the departmental candidates were
allowed to compete with the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange from
time to time.
At
this stage it would be appropriate to notice the facts in two other cases which
are similar to the one narrated earlier. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 11123 of 1996 the respondents had been appointed as
Classical Teachers in the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration in
August 1969 and they were promoted to the post of Master on officiating basis
on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee on 29th April, 1993. Show cause notice was issued to
them by the appellant on 3rd January, 1995 and they approached the Tribunal
which was registered as OA No.137/CH/95 and the Tribunal disposed of the matter
and allowed the same by order dated 14th November, 1995, following its earlier
decision in OA No. 138/CH/95, which is the subject matter of the appeal in the
Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11123/96. In the
third appeal the respondents were appointed as Electrical Works Experience
Teacher on 15th
September, 1973 which
was the post borne in Classical and Vernacular Cadre in the Education Department
of Chandigarh Administration. The respondents were promoted to the post of
Social Studies Master on 29th
April, 1993 on the
recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on officiating basis and
show cause notice was issued to them on 3rd January, 1995.
They
approached the Tribunal which was registered as OA 121/CH/95 and the Tribunal
by its judgment dated 9th
November, 1995 quashed
the notice issued by the appellant and restrained the appellant from cancelling
the promotion order dated 29th April, 1993.
In OA 138/CH/95 the Tribunal by its judgment dated 12th October, 1995 came to
hold that even though the appellant had issued a notice to show cause as to why
the promotion of the respondents should not be cancelled, but in view of their
stand to the effect that the promotion is contrary to the Statutory Rules, the
application before the Tribunal cannot be held to be premature and is
maintainable. Though the respondents had taken a stand that the vacancies which
were filled up by promoting them on 29th April, 1993, really occurred in the
year 1989-90 and, therefore, Rules then in force would govern the promotion,
the Tribunal rejected the said stand and came to hold that the promotion made
on 29th April, 1993 is governed by the Statutory Recruitment Rules which came
into force in the year 1991. The contention of the respondents that the Rules
in question are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution was negatived. But
interpreting the Rules of Recruitment the Tribunal came to hold that a
Classical Teacher who is either BT or B.Ed. can be promoted under the Rscruitment
Rules as such teachers are covered under Clause (ii) of Column 11 and therefore
the promotion in question cannot be said to be contrary to the Statutory Rules.
Ms. Kamini
Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
aforesaid interpretation of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous in as much as
under the Recruitment Rules no promotion is conceived from Classical teacher teacher
to that of master, a post borne in the school cadre of Group `C' and the
Tribunal committed serious error of law in coming to the aforesaid conclusion.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended, that the post
of Classical teachers being filled up by promotion to the extent of 20% from
amongst the PST teachers it would be wholly unsound to construe that the
promotion to the post of Master can be made only from amongst the PST teachers
and not from Classical teachers. In other words PST teachers being an eligible
category for promotion to the post of Classical and Vernacular teachers the
said promoted category people cannot be debarred from getting promotion to the
post of Master/Mistress (TGTs) and, therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any
error of law in interpreting the Rules by allowing promotion to the post of
Master from the category of Classical and Vernacular teachers. According to the
learned counsel for the respondents if the interpretation given by the
appellants' counsel is adhered to then PST teachers may be eligible for being
appointed by promotion as a Master/Mistress (TGT) but if he or she has been
already promoted to the post of a Classical and Vernacular teacher then he or
she should be debarred for being considered for promotion to the post of
Master/Mistress (TGTs). We find sufficient force in the contentions advanced by
the learned counsel for the respondents. For correct interpretation of the
relevant rules it would be appropriate to notice some of the provisions of the
Recruitment Rules. Rule 4 provides for Method of Recruitment, Age limit and
qualifications etc.
which
reads as under:
"The
method of recruitment to the said posts, age limit, qualifications and other
matters connected therewith shall be as specified in Column 5 to 13 of the said
Schedule." Columns 5 to 13 of the Schedule indicate the qualification and
other matters connected with the recruitment to the different posts. For our
purpose it would be relevant to extract columns 10 and 11 for the post of
Master/Mistress (TGT) teachers serial no. 3 of the Schedule and Classical &
Vernacular teachers which is in serial no. 4 of the Schedule. :- (10) (11)
3.Masters/ (i) Direct recruitment By Promotion Mistresses : 60% (T.G.Ts) (ii)
By Promotion (i) From amongst : 20% PST teachers teachers who (iii) By transfer
on possess B.A./ deputation B.Sc. degree : 20% with required subject
combination.
(ii)B.T./B.Ed.
Transfer
on Deputation from amongst persons holding analogous Posts on regular basis in
the State of Punjab & Haryana in the ratio of 60 : 40 4.Classical & (i)
By direct (i) By promotion Vernacular recruitment from amongst Teachers : 60% P.S.T.teachers
(ii) By Promotion (ii) By transfer on : 20% deputation from amongst (iii) By
transfer persons hold- -ing analogous posts on regular basis in the State of
Punjab and Haryana in the ratio of 60:40 Though on a plain reading of the
aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules support to a great extent the
contention advanced by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant but such interpretation would result in absurdity if two Rules
relating to the appointment of Master/Mistress (TGTs) Clalssical and Vernacular
teachers are read together. The post of Classical and Vernacular teachers under
the Recruitment Rules in question are to be filled up by direct recruitment to
the extent of 60%, by promotion to the extent of 20% and by transfer on
deputation to the extent of 20%. And as per column 11 promotion can be made
from amongst the PST teachers. The posts of Masters/Mistress (TGTs) with which
we are concerned in the present appeals under she relevant rules can also be
filled up by direct recruitment to the extent of 20%, by promotion to the
extent of 20% and by transfer on deputation to the extent of 20%. Column 11,
however, indicates that the promotion can be made from PST teachers who possess
B.A./B.Sc. degree with required subject combination.
Classical
and Vernacular teachers are not mentioned in Column 11 for being considered for
promotion to the post of Master/Mistress. But it is to be seen that while PST
teachers can be appointed as Classical and Vernacular teachers on promotion but
a Classical teacher would be debarred from being considered for promotion for
the post of Master whereas a PST teacher would alone be considered for promotion
to the post of Master. Such an interpretation of Rule will not only cause great
injustice but will create absurdity by giving unwarranted advantage to the
incumbents of the lower post of PST teacher over the incumbents of the higher
post of a Classical teacher, and such an interpretation cannot be sustained in
law. In other words the PST teacher being feeder category for promotion to the
post of Classical and Vernacular teachers under the Recruitment Rules in
question, the said Classical and Vernacular teacher can not be debarred for
being considered for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress (TGTs). The
Tribunal, therefore, was wholly justified in giving harmonious construction to
both the Rules and interpreting the Rule in a manner which would make rules of
Recruitment to both the categories of post namely, master/mistress (TGTs) and
Classical and Vernacular teachers legal and valid.
In
view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours we find no case has been made out for
interference with the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2