Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 639 (GAU)

Bidyut Kanti Choudhury v. State of Tripura

2004-12-20

A.B.PAL, BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.01 passed in W.P(c) No. 206/01 by which the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed. 2. The facts are in a narrow campus. It is the legality and validity of the procedure adopted by the respondents towards filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster, which was put to challenge by the petitioner/appellant. The writ petition was dismissed primarily on the grounds that the petitioner was estopped from making a challenge to the selection conducted for the purpose in view of his participation in the selection process. 3. The appellant is a qualified teacher having his degree of B.A. (Hon) and B.Ed. The school in which the appellant has been working is a Class XII level school with 100 percent Govt. grants-in-aid. The service of the petitioner is a provincialised one and the scale of pay with other allowances paid to the petitioner/appellant alongwith other teachers are at par with those of the teachers in the Govt. schools. The name of the school in which the appellant has been serving is "Fatikroy Class-XII School". 4. As Assistant teacher of the school, the petitioner/appellant can aspire for his future advancement in service career as Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster. It is the case of the appellant that if promotional scope is not afforded to the petitioner/appellant and other such incumbents, same will totally obliterate the advancement in the service career of an employee. The appellant/petitioner entered his service way back in 1968 and at the time of filing of the writ petition he had completed about 33 years of service without any promotion. 5. According to the petitioner he being the senior most teacher in the school was entitled to be considered for promotion as Assistant Headmaster as the other teacher namely Sri Kripesh Ranjan Deb who was the only qualified teacher to be appointed as Assistant Headmaster/Headmaster was to retire with effect from 30.4.01 on attaining the age of superannuation. 6. A notification dated 15.7.2000 was issued by the Secretary of the School Management Committee inviting applications for the post of Assistant Headmaster. Copy of the notification was endorsed to the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura and to the other authorities. By the said notification applications were invited for filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by direct recruitment. A notification dated 15.7.2000 was issued by the Secretary of the School Management Committee inviting applications for the post of Assistant Headmaster. Copy of the notification was endorsed to the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura and to the other authorities. By the said notification applications were invited for filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by direct recruitment. The petitioner offered his candidature and appeared in the selection. However, later on he withdrew his candidature and to that effect he submitted a letter dated 6.4.01 to the Secretary of the School Management Committee making a request not to consider his case for appointment as Assistant Headmaster as a Direct recruit since he was entitled to be considered for such appointment by way of promotion. Placing reliance on the notification dated 6.4.1982 by which the method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress of the Higher Secondary School under the Education Department, Govt. of Tripura was laid down, it is the case of the petitioner that as per the said notification he is entitled to be considered for such appointment. The said notification and the relevant clauses are quoted below: No. F.2(12-11)-DSE/80 Government of Tripura Education Department (School Education) Dated Agartala, the 6th April, 1982 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tripura, in consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission is pleased to make rules in the Schedule hereto annexed regarding the method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress, Higher Secondary School under the Education Department of the Government of Tripura. This supersedes this Department's Notification No. F.25(1)/E/70(HC) dated 7th October, 1970. By order of the Governor SCHEDULE Recruitment Rules for The Post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress, Higher Secondary School Under the Education Department of the Government of Tripura. 1. Name of post: Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress, Higher Secondary School 5. Whether selection post or non selection post.: Selection post 10. Method of recruitment By promotion falling whether by direct recruitment which by transfer or by promotion or transfer: and falling both by and percentage of the direct recruitment. Vacancies to be filled up by various methods. 12. If a DPC exists what is the composition.: Class-II DPC 7. By yet another notification dated 15.08.80 issued by the Govt. Method of recruitment By promotion falling whether by direct recruitment which by transfer or by promotion or transfer: and falling both by and percentage of the direct recruitment. Vacancies to be filled up by various methods. 12. If a DPC exists what is the composition.: Class-II DPC 7. By yet another notification dated 15.08.80 issued by the Govt. of Tripura Directorate of School Education, the qualifications for the post of Assistant Headmaster etc. for the non-Government aided schools were laid down. These notifications were pressed into service to bring home the point of argument that like that of other Government Schools, the schools receiving 100 per cent grants in aid which are described as non Government schools are also under the deep and pervasive control of the Education Department of the Govt. of Tripura. The petitioner/appellant also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 04.11.94 passed in C.R. No. 363/94 by which the Memoranda dated 26.03.89 and 20.11.89 providing inter alia standing Selection Committee/Board for every non-Government aided institutions were quashed. This decision was pressed into service to buttress the argument that like that of the Govt. Schools, even the non-Government schools with 100 percent grants in aid with the provincialised service of the teachers, the above quoted notification dated 6.4.82 providing scope for promotion to Assistant Teacher to the rank of Assistant Headmaster etc. would hold the filed. 8. The bone of contention of the petitioner/appellant was that in the event of filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by direct recruitment, same would lead to stagnation. The petitioner/appellant emphasized on career progression and promotional opportunities generating efficiency in service and fostering appropriate attitude to grow for receiving excellency in service. In a nutshell, it was the case of the petitioner/appellant that the above quoted notification dated 6.4.82 was equally applicable to non-Government schools in terms of which the post of Assistant Headmaster is required to be filled up by promotion failing which by transfer and filling both, by direct recruitment. 9. Two separate affidavits, one on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e. State of Tripura, the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala and the Deputy Director of Education, North Zone, North Tripura, Kailasahar, and another on behalf of the respondents Nos. 9. Two separate affidavits, one on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e. State of Tripura, the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala and the Deputy Director of Education, North Zone, North Tripura, Kailasahar, and another on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, i.e. Secretary, Fatikroy Class XII School, P.O. Fatikroy, Kailasahar, North Tripura and the Headmaster, Fatikroy Class XII School, P.O. Fatikroy, Kailasahar, North Tripura respectively were filed resisting the claim of the petitioner/appellant. According to the respondents the appellant/petitioner cannot claim the benefit of promotion and that in absence of any scope for promotion, recourse had to be taken for filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by way of direct recruitment giving equal opportunity to all eligible teachers. According to them the above quoted notification dated 6.4.82 is not applicable to non-Government schools, although they might be run by 100 per cent grants-in-aid. 10. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in their affidavit apart from above grounds, also highlighted as to how the petitioner on an earlier occasion offered his candidature for the post of Headmaster and appeared in the selection, but could not get appointment as he was placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list. They also highlighted in the affidavit as to how the petitioner offered his candidature in response to the advertisement in question and appeared in the selection. According to them it was only after the petitioner came to know that his position in the merit list would not permit him to be considered for appointment as Assistant Headmaster, he decided to withdraw his candidature and thereafter filed the writ petition. According to them the petitioner was estopped from doing so. 11. An affidavit in reply was filed by the petitioner against the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In the reply affidavit also the petitioner reiterated his stand in the writ petition. He denied that the writ petition was filed only after coming to know about the merit position in the select list. According to the petitioner the select list having not been published, there was no scope for him to know his position in the merit list. 12. We have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. According to the petitioner the select list having not been published, there was no scope for him to know his position in the merit list. 12. We have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. U.B. Shaha, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 assisted by his juniors. Mr. Bhattacharjee strenuously argued that the school in question and for that matter the non-Government Schools receiving 100 percent grants-in-aid from the Government cannot be viewed differently from that of the Government schools in the matter of promotion. According to him the above quoted notification dated 06.04.82 is equally applicable to non-Government schools in terms of which the post of Assistant Headmaster is required to be filled up only by promotion. It is only on failure to fill up the post on promotion, the other methods of appointment, i.e. transfer and direct recruitment, come into play. Emphasizing the need for promotion in one's service career, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that in absence of any declared rules and laid down procedure, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could not have deprived the petitioner from being considered for promotion. According to him the procedure adopted by the said respondents towards filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2004 SC 01 State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, justified the action of the respondents in resorting to the method of direct recruitment. They placed reliance on earlier decisions of this Court in W.P.(c) No. 478/ 2000 and W.P.(c) No. 202/2001 by which similar claims were rejected. Placing reliance on the notification relating to Grants-in-Aids and Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969, they argued that the petitioner cannot force the respondents to adopt a particular method of recruitment towards filling up of the post of Assistant Headmaster. In tune with the stand in the affidavit, they argued that the aforesaid notification dated 6.4.82 is not applicable to non-Government Schools. 14. In tune with the stand in the affidavit, they argued that the aforesaid notification dated 6.4.82 is not applicable to non-Government Schools. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 12.12.01 solely on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the bar of estoppel. Learned Single Judge did not enter into merit of the case and dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the petitioner was estopped from making a challenge to the selection after taking a chance for favourable consideration and on failure to achieve the same. The decisions on which the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 placed reliance, i.e. on W.P.(c) No. 478/2000 and W.P.(c) No. 202/2001, are also on the similar line. In any case the said decisions being of the learned Single Judge, are not binding on us. In the instant case also the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that after his appearance in the selection he has estopped from making challenge to the procedure adopted by the respondents towards filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster. 15. Since the point of estoppel was seriously argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents, we propose to decide the same first. There is no dispute that the petitioner offered his candidature in response to the appointment notification for filling up of the post of Assistant Headmaster by direct recruitment. There is no dispute that the candidature of the petitioner was accepted and he was invited for the interview. The petitioner appeared before the interview Board and immediately thereafter he withdrew his candidature by submitting his application dated 06.04.01 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The interview was conducted on 02.03.01 and immediately thereafter, within one month the petitioner withdrew himself from the purview of the selection. There is no dispute, rather admitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that till the aforesaid letter dated 06.04.01 submitted by the petitioner and filing of the writ petition, the results of the selection were not declared. The interview was conducted on 02.03.01 and immediately thereafter, within one month the petitioner withdrew himself from the purview of the selection. There is no dispute, rather admitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that till the aforesaid letter dated 06.04.01 submitted by the petitioner and filing of the writ petition, the results of the selection were not declared. The moot question for decision is as to whether the petitioner was estopped and/or precluded from making a challenge to the selection procedure adopted by the respondents, merely because he had appeared in the selection. Law is well settled that there cannot be any estoppel against law. Although the petitioner appeared before the selection, he withdrew his candidature immediately thereafter. It is not a case in which a person makes a challenge to a selection after participating in the same unsuccessfully. 16. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner has not made any challenge to the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee or the composition of the Selection Committee. What he has contended is that the post of Assistant Headmaster is required to be filled up by promotion on two counts, viz. (1) the above quoted notification dated 6.4.82 is applicable to the case of the non-Government schools receiving 100 percent grants-in-aid in which the services of the teachers are provincialised with the granting of the same scale of pay at par with the teachers of other Government Schools; (2) non-granting of atleast one promotion during the entire career to the teachers of the non-Government Schools like that of the school in which the petitioner has been working has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. There cannot be any denial that a person is recruited not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. The opportunity for advancement is required for progress of any Institution/Organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. In the case of C.S.I.R. v. Bhatt as reported in : AIR 1989 SC 1972 the Apex Court emphasized the need for opportunity of advancement in one's service career. In that case dealing with the case of a qualified Engineer who was left without any opportunity of promotion for about 20 years, the Apex Court observed as follows: 9. In the case of C.S.I.R. v. Bhatt as reported in : AIR 1989 SC 1972 the Apex Court emphasized the need for opportunity of advancement in one's service career. In that case dealing with the case of a qualified Engineer who was left without any opportunity of promotion for about 20 years, the Apex Court observed as follows: 9. ...He was, however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellant's management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See: Principles of Personnel Management by Flipo Edwin B. 4th Ed. P. 246) Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. "The organization that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a sever penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors". (See: Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Pareek P. 277). There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, man-power development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions. (See Management of Personnel in India Enterprises by Prof. N.N. Chatterjee, Chap. 12, P. 128). The appellant appears to have overlooked this basic requirement of management so far as respondent 1 was concerned till N.R. and A.S. were introduced. 18. In the case of K.K. Roy (supra) the Apex Court under similar circumstances and also dealing with the principle of waiver or estoppel and placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court observed as follows: 6. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despites its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue of promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India, Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced such a scheme, we wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the Appellant should have followed the said principle. 7. We are, thus, of the opinion that the respondent herein is at least entitled to grant of two higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of his joining of the service and the other upon expiry of 24 years thereof. 19. 7. We are, thus, of the opinion that the respondent herein is at least entitled to grant of two higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of his joining of the service and the other upon expiry of 24 years thereof. 19. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to get any promotion and that he is estopped from making a challenge to the process of direct recruitment are not sustainable. We may also gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court as reported in : (1997) 9 SCC 527 Rajkumar and Ors. v. Shakti Raj. In that case the Apex Court dealing with a particular procedure adopted by the respondents in the matter of appointment of Cannel Patwaris held that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence is not applicable in such matter. In that case also as in the instant case the question was whether the method of selection adopted by the selection committee was correct in law. The appellants appeared in the interview and remained unsuccessful. Thus, it was contended that the appellants having taken a chance to appear in the interview and having remained unsuccessful, could not turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal. The Apex Court noticing inapplicability of the procedure adopted by the Government, held that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the case. 20. In view of the above, we are constrained to hold that the petitioner/appellant was not estopped from making a challenge to the very procedure adopted towards making appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster. This being the position and the learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of purported estoppel on the part of the petitioner, the impugned order by which the writ petition was dismissed is liable to be interfered with which we accordingly do. The order dated 12.12.01 dismissing the writ petition stands set aside and quashed. However, with the setting aside and quashing of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the matter does not come to an end. The order dated 12.12.01 dismissing the writ petition stands set aside and quashed. However, with the setting aside and quashing of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the matter does not come to an end. The answer to be given to the real issue is as to whether the procedure adopted by the respondents towards filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by way of direct recruitment was correct or not. Instead of remanding back the matter to the Single Judge, we propose to decide the issue ourselves. 21. From the aforesaid narration of factual as well as legal position of the matter, it will be seen that the petitioner is without any promotion from 1968. Time and again the Apex Court has emphasized the need for granting promotions towards career advancement. The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court in the case of K.G.S. Bhatt and K.K. Roy (supra) which is a case from the State of Tripura, are the pointers to the same. While the teachers of the Government schools are entitled to consider for promotion, we see no reason as to why the teachers working in non-Government Schools receiving 100 percent grants-in-aid and whose services are provincialised with the same scale of pay like that of the teachers of the Government institutions, should be deprived of the avenue of promotion. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate providing equality before law and equal opportunity in the matter of appointment which inter alia include the appointment by promotion as well. 22. The above quoted notification dated 6.4.82 was issued by the Government of Tripura in the Education Department (School Education) laying down the criteria of qualification and promotion etc. As per the said notification the post of Assistant Headmaster is primarily a promotional post. It is only on failure to fill up the post on promotion, the other methods of recruitment, i.e. transfer and direct recruitment come into operation. The respondents could not produce anything on the basis of which they resorted to the procedure of filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by way of direct recruitment. It is true that the respondents are entitled to take a policy decision in the matter of recruitment. The respondents could not produce anything on the basis of which they resorted to the procedure of filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster by way of direct recruitment. It is true that the respondents are entitled to take a policy decision in the matter of recruitment. However, no such policy decision could be produced by the learned Counsel for the respondents except making a statement that the practice and procedure of making direct recruitment are being followed in the non-Government Schools. Even if any such policy decision has been adopted, same will have to satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 23. If the teachers of the Government schools can have avenue of promotion to the rank of Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster, we see no reason as to why the non-Government teachers receiving 100 per cent grants-in-aid from the Government and whose services have been provincialised with the same scale of pay at par with the teachers of the Government schools should be deprived of such right of consideration for promotion. Merely because the institution in which the petitioner has been working is not a Government institution, a different criteria and that too without disclosing the source of the same, cannot be adopted in the matter of career advancement, more particularly, when the other service conditions of both the categories of the teachers are the same. It is the duty of the Court to give harmonious interpretation to the rules so as to make them co-exist and work as a continuous whole. It is unfortunate to notice that the respondents were adopting their own procedure convenient to them without laying down any source or criteria for the same. 24.Denial of any chance of promotion altogether, howsoever minimum it may be, naturally leads to frustration. Confinement of an employee in his entry grade till his retirement without proving any scope for promotion cannot be appreciated. Reasonable promotional opportunity generates efficiency in service and fosters appropriate aptitude and aptitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. Stagnation in one's service career cannot be made the rule. The procedure which the respondents have adopted also may lead to a kind of situation in which an erstwhile student might be appointed as Assistant Headmaster above his erstwhile teacher. This will naturally have serious repercussions leading to degeneration in service. Stagnation in one's service career cannot be made the rule. The procedure which the respondents have adopted also may lead to a kind of situation in which an erstwhile student might be appointed as Assistant Headmaster above his erstwhile teacher. This will naturally have serious repercussions leading to degeneration in service. It is in this context, the Apex Court time and again has emphasized the need for minimum promotional scope. It is also in this context why the schemes like Assured Career Progression (ACP), restructuring etc. have been formulated by various Governments. If the other things are equal and there is no impediment in making the above quoted notification dated 06.04.82 laying down the criteria of promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster applicable to the case of similarly situated teachers of non-Government schools receiving 100 percent grants-in-aid with provincialisation of service, we see no reason as to why the said notification cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner and for that matter to the case of the teachers working in such schools. We are of the considered opinion that a pragmatic approach is required to be taken in the matter. 25. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Pradesh State Recognized and Aided Schools Managing Committees and Ors. as reported in : (1995) 4 SCC 507 , the Apex Court after noticing the various factors pertaining to the Government Aided Schools and the Government Schools and upon making a reference to the report of the Kothari Commission which the Central Government had appointment to examine the condition of service of teachers with the object of improving the standard of education in the country, held as follows: 8. The aided schools teach the same syllabus and curriculum, prescribe the books and courses as per Government directions and prepare the students for same examinations for which the students studying in Government schools are prepared. The qualifications of the teachers are prescribed by the State Government and the appointments are made with the approval of the State Government. The fees levied and concessions allowed are strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Education Department of the State Government from time to time. The Managing Committees of aided schools are approved by the State Government and two members of the Committee are appointed by the Education Department. The fees levied and concessions allowed are strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Education Department of the State Government from time to time. The Managing Committees of aided schools are approved by the State Government and two members of the Committee are appointed by the Education Department. The service conditions of the teachers including disciplinary proceedings and award of punishment etc. are governed by the Rules framed by the State Government. 9. It is, thus, obvious that the State Government has a deep and pervasive control on the aided schools. The Government schools and the aided schools especially after the Kothari Commission Report have always been treated on as par. It has been authoritatively laid down by this Court that the teachers working in the aided schools are entitled to the same salaries and allowances as arc being paid to the teachers in the Government Schools, In Haryana State of Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana Pathak, C.J. speaking for this Court held (SCC. p. 573, para 3) "in our opinion, the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same pay scale and clearness allowance as teachers in the Government schools for the entire period claimed by the petitioners....". This judgment was subsequently interpreted by this Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana where Agarwal, J. speaking for the Court observed as under (SCC p. 314, para 10). The judgment of this Court dated 28.07.88 also accepts the principle of parity in the matter of salaries and dearness allowance of teachers employed in aided schools and those employed in Government schools and there is nothing in the judgment which indicates that the said principle of parity is to be applied upto 31.12.85 only, and not thereafter. In the circumstances we are of the view that the direction of this Court in the Judgment dated 28.07.88 must be construed to mean that the respondents are required to maintain such parity and to revise, from time to time, the pay scales and dearness allowances of the teachers employed in aided schools as and when the pay scales and dearness allowance of teachers employed in Government schools are revised. It is, therefore, incumbent upon respondents to revise the pay scales of teachers employed in the aided schools so as to bring the same at par with the pay scales of the teachers employed in Government schools with effect from 01.01.86 and fix the salaries of the teachers employed in aided schools in the revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.86 and pay the salaries and dearness allowance to these teachers on that basis. 10. It is, therefore, late in the day to say that the teachers in the aided schools are not entitled to parity in the matter of salary allowances etc. with their counterparts in the Government schools. The question, for our consideration, however, is whether the State Government or the Management is to meet the consequent expenditure. 26. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner and for that matter the teachers of the non-Government schools receiving 100 per cent grants-in-aid from the Government must be treated at par with the teachers of other Government schools in the matter of promotion. There is no distinctive feature so as to hold that the aforesaid notification dated 06.04.82 is not applicable to the case of such non-Government school teachers. Even otherwise also the non-Government school teachers cannot be deprived of any avenue of promotion. Stagnation in service career cannot be made the rule. Consequently the writ appeal succeeds granting the prayer made in W.P.(c) No. 206/01. The respondents shall now proceed in the matter providing promotional avenue to the petitioner and for that matter the teachers of the non-Government schools receiving 100 per cent grants-in-aid from the Government at par with the teachers of the Government schools. The case of the petitioner should be appropriately dealt with in the manner. 27. The writ appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 12.12.01 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(c) No. 206/ 01 stands set aside and quashed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed