Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2735 (ALL)

Deepak Singh v. State of U. P.

2013-11-07

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2013
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.: - The petitioner is a teacher in an Intermediate College. He is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director dated 1.3.2011 whereby he has been promoted on the post of Lecturer, Military Science from the date the Joint Director has passed the order. 2. The essential facts of the case are that Saraswati Inter College, Hathras, is a recognized institution. It receives financial aid out of State fund. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 , the regulations framed thereunder, the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 are applicable to the affairs of the institution. The respondent no. 4 Committee of Management administers the College having regard to the statutory provisions of the above mentioned Acts. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.7.1989 in L.T.Grade. He was confirmed on 10.7.1990 and was placed under selection grade in the year 1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that a vacancy occurred on the post of Lecturer in Military Science due to retirement of one Gulab Chandra Sharma. The petitioner possess essential qualification for promotion against the said post. As the post falls under 50% quota the Committee of management took a resolution dated 7.2.2002 to promote the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Military Science. The said resolution was forwarded to the office of the District Inspector of Schools which was received by the District Inspector of Schools on 22.2.2003. The office of the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the papers to the Joint Director of Education on 4.1.2005. When no action was taken the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 48585 of 2008 (Deepak Singh v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was disposed of on 12th August, 2010 and a direction was issued to the Joint Director of Education to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 4. In compliance thereof the Joint Director of Education has passed the impugned order whereby he found the petitioner entitled for promotion on the post of Lecturer, Military Science and accordingly he approved the promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer but from the date of passing of his order. 5. 4. In compliance thereof the Joint Director of Education has passed the impugned order whereby he found the petitioner entitled for promotion on the post of Lecturer, Military Science and accordingly he approved the promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer but from the date of passing of his order. 5. This Court has granted repeatedly time to the State functionaries to file counter affidavit On 30.7.2013 this Court granted six weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit. The State functionaries have preferred not to file counter affidavit. Notice was also sent to the Committee of Management. According to the office report the said notice was served on them but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Committee of management. 6. With the consent of the learned Standing Counsel the matter is being finally disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date when the vacancy occurred on 30.6.2002 the petitioner possessed the essential qualification as he did his Post Graduation in Military Science and he has completed more than five years of his service as Assistant Teacher, therefore, he was entitled for promotion against the said post. The Committee of management having satisfied that the claim of the petitioner for promotion is justified passed the resolution and it was forwarded to the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Thus there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the delay which has been caused was on account of in action on the part of the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education. 8. Learned Standing Counsel in absence of no reply filed by the State functionaries is unable to explain the delay on the part of those authorities. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. The promotion on the post of Lecturer is governed by Rule 14 and 16 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998( for short Rules 1998). 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. The promotion on the post of Lecturer is governed by Rule 14 and 16 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998( for short Rules 1998). Rule 14 reads as under : - "Procedure for recruitment by promotion.- (1) where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade, if any, who possess the qualifications, prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be without their having applied for the same. (2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. (3) The Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1), and forward it to the inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix 'A'. (4) Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the management under sub-rule (3), the Inspector shall verify the facts from the record of his office and forward the list to the Joint Director. (5) The Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in sub-rule (3) and may call such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 12 and after the committee's recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management. (6) With ten days for the receipt of the panel from the Joint Director under sub-rule (5), the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidates to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy and the Management shall accordingly on authorization under its resolution issue the appointment order in the proforma given in Appendix 'F' to the such candidate. 11. A simple reading of the Rules makes it clear that considering of promotion is time bound procedure. 11. A simple reading of the Rules makes it clear that considering of promotion is time bound procedure. The intention of Rule making authority is that there should not be delay in promotion of a teacher. 12. Under sub section (1) of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act,1982, for each region a Selection Committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of Regional Joint Director of Education. 13. In the case in hand, indisputably, the vacancy was caused on 30.6.2002 as permanent Lecturer reached his age of superannuation. The Committee of Management informed that the post was under 50% quota for promotion and it passed the resolution dated 6.7.2002. From the impugned order it is evident that the resolution of the Committee of Management was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.2.2003. In his comment the District Inspector of Schools had admitted this fact. However, he further forwarded it on 4.1.2005 in the comment submitted to the Joint Director of Education no reason has been mentioned b y the District Inspector of Schools as to why he kept the matter pending from the year 2003 to 2005. From his comment it is also evident that during the two years period there no query made from the office of the District Inspector of Schools with respect to petitioner's qualification or any other legal impediment in the promotion of the petitioner. Thus the delay caused by the District Inspector of Schools is totally unjustifiable. 14. A perusal of the Scheme of the Act and Rules indicates that authority should consider the promotion in a time bound manner. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts I am of the view that the order of the Joint Director who has himself passed the order after more than one year granting the promotion to the petitioner from the date of order is unsustainable. This Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. And others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65401 of 2006) has considered the similar facts where there was undue delay of eight years on the part of Educational Authorities. In the said case the Court was of the view as there was no fault of the teacher his promotion ought to have been made from the date of ad hoc promotion. 16. Writ Petition No. 65401 of 2006) has considered the similar facts where there was undue delay of eight years on the part of Educational Authorities. In the said case the Court was of the view as there was no fault of the teacher his promotion ought to have been made from the date of ad hoc promotion. 16. In the case in hand the petitioner has stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that he is teaching Military Science from 1.7.2002 in Class XI and XII but it appears that there is no approval of his ad hoc promotion in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules,1998. In the absence of the counter affidavit no finding can be recorded on the said issue therefore the matter requires to be remitted to the Joint Director of Education. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the matter is remitted to the Joint Director of Education to consider the fact that from which date the petitioner was teaching Military Science as Lecturer to Standard XI and XII in the institution. The Joint Director may call the original records from the College concerned and if he is satisfied that the petitioner has been teaching the Military Science from 1.7.2002 he shall promote the petitioner from the said date. 18. The Joint Director of Education shall complete the said exercise within six weeks from the date of communication of the said order after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the Committee of Management. 19. With the aforesaid observations and order, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 20. No order as to costs.