JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral):-The members of the petitioner’s Parishad are working as Shastris in various schools. The precise case of the members of the Parishad is that there are no promotional avenues for their category. The Court had directed the respondent-State on 9.1.2009 to consider whether promotional avenues could be provided to the category of the petitioner or not. The Director has filed the supplementary affidavit. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same read thus: “2. That regarding the promotion avenues for the Sanskrit Teachers, it is submitted that the category of Sanskrit Teachers who are Acharya, M.A. are eligible for promotion to the post of Pandits in Sanskrit Pathshala and those Sanskrit Shastries, who are B.A. are also eligible for undergoing B.Ed. training and thereafter entitled for appointment as B.Ed. teacher. 3. That it is further submitted that the replying respondent has submitted the proposal to the Government for amendment in R&P Rules for making provisions of 10% quota to the Shastries (C&V) categories) for promotion to the post of Headmaster in the Elementary Education department and the matter is under consideration of the Government. Hence, there are sufficient provisions of promotion to the petitioner’s categories.” 2. It appears from the contents of these paragraphs that the petitioners’ grievance has been redressed partly. The larger issue of providing promotional avenues to the category of the petitioners has not been addressed to by the Director while filing the supplementary affidavit. It is settled law by now that for every category of employees there must be 2 to 3 promotional avenues during service. The members of the petitioner category belong to a special class of teachers i.e. Shastris. These teachers impart Hindi and Sanskrit education to the children. The importance of Hindi and Sanskrit cannot be undermined. It is also true that the Court cannot direct for framing of a particular set of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It falls within the realm of policy matter. However, as laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Parshotam Das Bansal and others, (2008) 5 SCC 100, the higher Courts can issue directions to the State/employer to frame a scheme for providing promotional avenues to those categories who have been deprived of this privilege. However, as laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Parshotam Das Bansal and others, (2008) 5 SCC 100, the higher Courts can issue directions to the State/employer to frame a scheme for providing promotional avenues to those categories who have been deprived of this privilege. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 5 SCC 100 (supra) have made the following observations: “The appellant is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it has a right to be considered therefore. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. 3. This Courtin O.Z. Hussain (Dr.) V. Union of India opined: (SCC pp. 691-92, para 7) “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical “A” Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that o n the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the ‘A’ category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate.” 4. The question also came up for consideration in Ujagar Prints (III) Vs. Union of India and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Vs. K.G.S. Bhatt. In the latter decision, this Court held: (SCC pp.638-39, para 9) “9. …It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not ‘hire a hand’ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. K.G.S. Bhatt. In the latter decision, this Court held: (SCC pp.638-39, para 9) “9. …It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not ‘hire a hand’ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation 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 organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See Principles of Personnel Management by Flipo Edwin B., 4th Edn., p. 246.) Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. ‘The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe 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, manpower development, management development, etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.” When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that they fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the superior court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a superior court of the country.” 5. The Apex Court in Satyanarayana and others versus S. Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 have held that the purpose of promotion is to remove stagnation and avoid frustration amongst the employees. 6. The Apex Court in Satyanarayana and others versus S. Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 have held that the purpose of promotion is to remove stagnation and avoid frustration amongst the employees. 6. In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships in (2008) 5 SCC 100 (supra), the respondents are directed to frame a scheme within a period of 8 weeks from today to provide promotional avenues to the category of the petitioners and in the meantime also to take a final decision with regard to the proposal as mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit filed by the Director Education on 25.2.2009. 7. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. There will, however, be no order as tocosts.