Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 13 (ALL)

VISHWESH RAJRATNAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2019-01-02

AJAY BHANOT

body2019
JUDGMENT Ajay Bhanot, J. The matter is taken up in the revised call. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5. In view of the service report dated 09.07.2014 the services on respondent no. 5 is complete. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. By the order dated 21.02.2014 and the consequential orders dated 01.03.2014 and 05.03.2014, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Civics in the respondent Institution has been invalidated. 4. Thus aggrieved the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, the order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and the consequential order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad in the instant writ petition. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Jitendra Singh is that the petitioner was the senior most teacher who was eligible for being promoted as Lecturer at the relevant point in time. The claim of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner obtained the M.A.(Political Science) degree in the year 2010 without obtaining permission from the competent authority. The denial of promotion is arbitrary and contrary to the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, reported at,2004 4 ESC 2492. The petitioner is entitled to full backwages of the promotional post. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to other authorities to support his entitlement to full backwages. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner obtained the degree without obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Government Order dated 11.09.1958. The petitioner was rightly denied promotion. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The facts stated in the preceding paragraphs stand established beyond the pale of dispute. The said facts are relevant for a judgment on the controversy at hand. 9. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grate in the respondent College on 16.10.2003. At the time of his appointment, the educational qualifications of the petitioner were M.A. (History) and B.Ed. The petitioner applied for permission to the Principal of the Institution for pursuing the M.A. (Political Science) were as a private candidate. 9. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grate in the respondent College on 16.10.2003. At the time of his appointment, the educational qualifications of the petitioner were M.A. (History) and B.Ed. The petitioner applied for permission to the Principal of the Institution for pursuing the M.A. (Political Science) were as a private candidate. The permission was granted by the Principal of the Institution on 21.07.2008. The petitioner successfully obtained the degree in M.A. (Political Science). The Principal of the Institution directed that the aforesaid qualification be entered in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Civics. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of a valid M.A.(Political Science) degree on the date of consideration of his claim for promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of a valid M.A.(Political Science) degree on the date of consideration of his claim for promotion. 10. It is undisputed that on the date of consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Civics. The petitioner possessed all the educational qualifications required for appointment to the promotional post. Further, the petitioner was the senior most teacher in the aforesaid Institution. The record of service of the petitioner has been unblemished. Accordingly, as per the rules for promotion, the claim of the petitioner for promotion became undeniable. 11. However, by the order dated 21.02.2014, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Civics) has been invalidated. The sole ground for denial of promotion to the petitioner was that the petitioner had obtained the M.A. (Political Science) degree without taking permission from the competent authority, i.e. the Manager of the Institution. 12. The Government Order dated 11.09.1958 regulates the right of teachers to obtain additional qualifications during their employment. The sole ground for denial of promotion to the petitioner was that the petitioner had obtained the M.A. (Political Science) degree without taking permission from the competent authority, i.e. the Manager of the Institution. 12. The Government Order dated 11.09.1958 regulates the right of teachers to obtain additional qualifications during their employment. The Government Order dated 11.09.1958 being relevant is extracted hereunder for ease of reference: ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr izs”kd] la;qDr f'k{kk lapkyd] mŸkj izns'k f'k{kk lkekU; ¼1½ foHkkx] bykgkcknA lsok es] leLr ftyk fo|ky; mŸkj izns'k i=akd lkekU; % 1@1737@14&58&59 fnukad flrEcj 11] 1958 fo”k; % izns'k dh ekU;rk izkIr v'kkldh; f'k{k.k laLFkkvks esa dk;Z djus okys v/;kidks dks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj”kn ;k fo'ofo|ky;ksa ijh{kk es cSBus dh vuqefr nsus ds lac/k esaA egksn;] mi;qDr fo”k;d bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad th&1@1944@pkSng&&26&11 fnukad flrEcj] 1956 ds i= esa fuosnu gS fd ekU;rk izkIr v'kkldh; ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kidksa dks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj”kn ;k fo'ofo|ky;ksa dh ijh{kk esa cSBus dh Lohd`fr laLFkk ds iz/kku vius fo/kky; ds izcU/kd dh iwoZ vuqefr dj ns ldrs gS ,d o”kZ esa lLFkk ds 15 izfr'kr ls vf/kd vH;fFk;ksZ dks vuqefr u nh tk;A 3- mi;qDr lqfo/kk fuEufyf[kr v/;kidks dks nh tk;s% 1- LFkkbZ v/;kid] 2- vLFkkbZ v/;kid] ftudk lsok&dky ml laLFkk esa 2 o”kZ ls vf/kd gksA 3+- ftu v/;kidksa dks ijh{kk esa cSBus dh vuqefr nh tkos mUgs Li”V crk fn;k tk;s fd ;fn fo|ky; lEcU/kh muds dk;Z esa {kfr igqWph rks vuqefr okil yh tk ldrh gS A ijh{kk ds fy,s NqVVh lk/kkj.k fu;ekuqlkj feysxkA 4- LFkkuh; fudk;ksa }kjk lapkfyr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kid dks Hkh mi;qDr vkns'k bl la'kks/ku ds lkFk ykxw gksxs fd ijh{kk esa cSBus dh vuqefr os vf/kdkjh nsaxs ftUgs fudk; lEca/kh fu;eksa ds vf/kdkj izkIr gksA Hkonh; cyoar flag L;kyA la;qDr f'k{kk lapkyd mŸkj izns'kA 13. A perusal of the Government Order clearly shows that the competent authority to grant permission to teachers in an institution for pursuing academic courses conducted by various universities and education boards is the principal of the institution. The principal has to obtain prior approval from the Manager of the Institution before granting the permission. 14. In the instant case, the Principal had accorded permission to the petitioner to pursue the post graduate course of M.A. in Political Science. Hence, the competent authority under the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 granted permission to the petitioner. 15. The principal has to obtain prior approval from the Manager of the Institution before granting the permission. 14. In the instant case, the Principal had accorded permission to the petitioner to pursue the post graduate course of M.A. in Political Science. Hence, the competent authority under the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 granted permission to the petitioner. 15. The Principal had apparently not taken prior approval from the Committee of Management. The default clearly is on the part of the said Principal. For such default of the Principal, the petitioner cannot be penalized. The authority while passing the order impugned has misdirected itself in law. 16. The next question is whether the failure to take permission from the Manager of the Institution would invalidate the effect of such degree. The question in a similar factual matrix was posed to a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, reported at 2004 4 ESC 2492. In the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey (supra), the petitioner had obtained the M.Ed. degree as a regular student without taking leave from the college where she was working as a teacher. It was contended that M.Ed. degree could not be considered for the purposes of promotion. A stand to this effect was also taken by the Committee of Management before this Court. Negating the stand taken by the Committee of Management, this Court held: “In our opinion, the M.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be over looked merely on the ground that the said degree was obtained without taking leave from the College where he was working. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judge in the case of Ikramul Haq(supra). A degree obtained by a candidate from a recognised Institution cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the candidate, who was also a teacher in the College had not taken leave. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Education in the College.” 17. The case of the petitioner is on a better footing. The petitioner had obtained permission from the Principal of the Institution who is the competent authority to grant permission. The petitioner appeared as a private candidate and not a regular candidate. The case of the petitioner is on a better footing. The petitioner had obtained permission from the Principal of the Institution who is the competent authority to grant permission. The petitioner appeared as a private candidate and not a regular candidate. The degree of M.A. (Political Science) so obtained by the petitioner was also entered in the service record of the petitioner on the directions of the Principal of the Institution. The Committee of Management was thus alerted to the aforesaid qualifications obtained by the petitioner. It is consequently estopped from challenging the degree obtained by the petitioner or questioning its validity for the purposes of promotion. 18. The impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion have been passed on the foot of the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 (quoted in the earlier part of the judgment). The scope of the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 has to be interpreted in the light of the purpose it serves and the role of the teachers who are within its ambit. 19. Teachers occupy a revered position in our social traditions and hold the pride of place in our constitutional law. The teachers are role models and living sources of inspiration for the students. 20. It could be apposite to reinforce the narrative by good authority. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, reported at, (1992) 4 SCC 435 emphasizing the role of a teacher as a role model and the requirement for continuing education for teachers held thus: “The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. Formal education needs proper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education.” 21. Once again reiterating the high station of the teachers, their pivotal role in nation building and the imperative of high standards in training of teachers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education, reported at, (1989) 1 SCC 392 opined: “Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the “engine” of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of everchanging conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration.” 22. The good teacher is a perennial student. Quest for learning never ends in a good student. Continuous pursuit of knowledge by teachers deepens understanding and widens horizons. Intellectual capital created by continuous learning even after securing employment, becomes an asset for the institution. The further learning of the teachers in fact endures to the benefit of the students. The teachers can impart what the know and have learnt. The quality of teaching is proportional to the depth of learning of the teachers. The environment or ecology of the institution and the system has to encourage and support teachers who are engaged in higher learning. 23. But there is a caveat. The right of the teachers to pursue courses of higher learning or acquiring additional academic qualifications is circumscribed by the current demands of the institution and the extant requirements of the students. 24. The pursuit of higher learning or the endeavours to acquire additional qualifications by the teachers cannot interfere with their primary duty of teaching. The interests of the students are paramount and cannot be compromised. In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the course being pursued by the teacher and the demands of the academic schedule of the students or the needs of the institution, the principal and the management of the institution shall take a decision in the matter. They are best placed to take such decision. The decision shall be taken by according primacy to the academic needs of the students and the institution. However, when there is no such conflict no restriction can be placed on the acquisition of additional qualifications by a teacher and no disqualification will accrue to such teacher. 25. They are best placed to take such decision. The decision shall be taken by according primacy to the academic needs of the students and the institution. However, when there is no such conflict no restriction can be placed on the acquisition of additional qualifications by a teacher and no disqualification will accrue to such teacher. 25. In the facts of the case and the record of the writ petition, this Court finds that there was no incompatibility in the requirements of the students, the needs of the institution and the demands of the academic course pursued by the petitioner. The academic course of M.A. (Political Science) which is in issue, did not in any manner impede the functioning of the petitioner as a teacher in the institution. Nor did it undermine the interests of the students of the institution. The petitioner appeared as a private candidate. The provisions of the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 cannot be invoked to penalize the petitioner in any manner. 26. The entitlement of the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) cannot be denied on the grounds recorded in the impugned orders. 27. While adverting to the nature and scope of the right to promotion in the case of Union of India Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak, reported in, (2007) 6 SCC 704 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the right to be considered for promotion would be meaningful, if it brings within its purview and effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court distilled the law in the case of Sangram Keshari Nayak (supra) in the following terms: “Promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable therefore. Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for promotion. On the day on which, it is accepted at the bar, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him.” 28. Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for promotion. On the day on which, it is accepted at the bar, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him.” 28. The order dated 21.02.2014 records that the date of appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade was 21.10.2003, while the date of appointment of respondent no. 4, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav was 05.12.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner is senior to the respondent no. 4, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav. Only ground for invalidating the claim of the petitioner for promotion and superseding him by a junior, respondent no. 4, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, was because the petitioner did not obtain the degree in M.A. (Political Science) after obtaining permission from the competent authority/manager of the institution. 29. It is established from the narrative and findings in the earlier part of the judgment that the consideration of the case of the petitioner was denied promotion in violation of the Government Order dated 11.09.1958, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey (supra) and in complete disregard of the facts in the record. The consideration of the case for promotion was not meaningful and lacked purpose. 30. In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, this Court finds that the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, the order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and the consequential order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad are arbitrary, illegal and cannot stand. 31. The action of the respondent authorities was completely perverse and arbitrary. The denial of promotion of the petitioner, is not an error of judgment on which two views can be taken but an instance of arbitrary exercise of power. The respondent no. 4 was illegally promoted. The petitioner was arbitrarily denied promotion despite his eligibility. He was illegally prevented from exercising his duties as Lecturer (Civics) in the respondent institution. 32. Further the petitioner had no means to obtain redressal of the injustice meted out to him nor did he have any alternative avenue of promotion. Consequently, the petitioner had to continue as an Assistant Teacher in the college. 33. He was illegally prevented from exercising his duties as Lecturer (Civics) in the respondent institution. 32. Further the petitioner had no means to obtain redressal of the injustice meted out to him nor did he have any alternative avenue of promotion. Consequently, the petitioner had to continue as an Assistant Teacher in the college. 33. Arbitrary denial of the promotion to a school teacher and unjust treatment of a school teacher, sends a wrong message and sets an incorrect example for a young and impressionable students in the institution. 34. The nature of injustice often shapes the kind of relief to be granted. 35. Grant of relief is the moment of reckoning in the process of law and the redeeming act of justice by the courts. Relief is not an act of philanthropy by the courts nor is it a windfall for the litigant. Grant of relief is guided by balance of multiple issues and clear and manageable standards. The residual discretion will be exercised in the light of the conscience of the court. 36. Relief is moulded on the facts of each case. Sympathy cannot be the basis of grant of relief. Relief cannot be denied on the foot of the doctrine of fait accompli. The endeavour of the courts is to right the wrong. The parties should be put back in the position they would have been but for the intervention of the offending act. Subsequent events may have to be factored in deciding the nature of the relief. 37. While considering the grant of backwages the nature of the order will led to the denial of wages shall be examined. Whether the order was vitiated on account of a technical defect which can be rectified upon remand is a relevant factor. Whether the remand of the matter to the authorities is possible and justified? Whether the order was a bonafide error of judgment by the authorities and the conduct of the parties is another criteria of consideration. In case the order is perverse and no other view is possible, then the defect cannot be supplied even upon remand. This fact would buttress the case for full backwages. The findings in the preceding paragraphs will guide the judgement on the issue. 38. It would now be apposite to fortify the narrative with judicial authority on point. 39. In case the order is perverse and no other view is possible, then the defect cannot be supplied even upon remand. This fact would buttress the case for full backwages. The findings in the preceding paragraphs will guide the judgement on the issue. 38. It would now be apposite to fortify the narrative with judicial authority on point. 39. The nature of injustice and the adverse consequences of the assailed orders as factors in moulding of relief came up as an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, reported at, (2007) 7 SCC 689 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner., Karnataka Housing Board (supra) opined that in appropriate cases denial of full backwages would amount to permitting the employer to take advantage of his own wrongs. The Hon'be Supreme Court laid down the law in the following terms: “33. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. 34. Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. 34. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is “no work no pay”. In appropriate cases, however, a court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a court of law and if such directions are issued by a court, the authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.” 40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and another, reported at, (2014) 3 SCC 670 . The Hon'ble Court in the case of Major General H.M. Singh, VSM (supra) had the occasion to consider the nature of relief to be granted when promotion has been denied on arbitrary grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Major General H.M. Singh, VSM (supra) while granting all monitory benefits to the petitioner which would have been due to him but for the arbitrary denial of such promotion, held thus: “33. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, there is no doubt whatsoever, that a clear vacancy against the rank of Lieutenant General became available with effect from 1.1.2007. At that juncture, the Appellant had 14 months of service remaining. It is not as if the vacancy came into existence after the Appellant had reached the age of retirement on superannuation. The present case is therefore, not covered by the technical plea canvassed at the hands of the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents. At that juncture, the Appellant had 14 months of service remaining. It is not as if the vacancy came into existence after the Appellant had reached the age of retirement on superannuation. The present case is therefore, not covered by the technical plea canvassed at the hands of the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents. The denial of promotion to the Appellant mainly for the reason, that the Appellant was on extension in service, to our mind, is unsustainable besides being arbitrary, specially in the light of the fact, that the vacancy for which the Appellant was clamouring consideration, became available, well before the date of his retirement on superannuation. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the basis on which the claim of the Appellant for onward promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General was declined, by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. 34. In view of the fact, that we have found the order of rejection of the Appellant's claim for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, on the ground that he was on extended service to be invalid, we hereby set aside the operative part of the order of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. It is also apparent, that the Selection Board had recommended the promotion of the Appellant on the basis of his record of service, past performance, qualities of leadership, as well as, vision, out of a panel of four names. In its deliberations the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, did not record any reason to negate the aforesaid interference, relating to the merit and suitability of the Appellant. We are therefore of the view, that the Appellant deserves promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, from the date due to him. Ordered accordingly. On account of his promotion to the post of Lieutenant General, the Appellant would also be entitled to continuation in service till the age of retirement on superannuation stipulated for Lieutenant Generals, i.e., till his having attained the age of 60 years. As such, the Appellant shall be deemed to have been in service against the rank of Lieutenant General till 28.2.2009. As such, the Appellant shall be deemed to have been in service against the rank of Lieutenant General till 28.2.2009. Needless to mention, that the Appellant would be entitled to all monetary benefits which would have been due to him, on account of his promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General till his retirement on superannuation, as also, to revised retiral benefits which would have accrued to him on account of such promotion. The above monetary benefits shall be released to the Appellant within three months from the date a certified copy of this order becomes available with the Respondents.” 41. On the foot of the preceding narrative, this Court finds that the injustice meted out to the petitioner can be redeemed and the cause of justice can be subserved only by grant of full backwages of the post of Lecturer (Civics) to the petitioner from the date his junior, respondent no. 4 was promoted on the post of Lecturer in Civics in the respondent institution. 42. The impugned orders in the record do not record any other infirmity in the credentials or eligibility of the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics), save the one which is recorded in the impugned orders. The said infirmity does not exist any longer in view of the narrative in the earlier part of the judgment. On the basis of the material in the record, the petitioner is held entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) in the respondent institution. 43. The stage is now set for final directions. Ordinarily, the courts remit the matters to the competent authority for reconsideration in case the order passed by the authority is invalidated. However, on occasions and in the interest of justice, the courts have not held back and have mandamused the authorities. 44. This Court is fortified in adopting this course of action by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, reported at, (1986) 2 SCC 679 . 44. This Court is fortified in adopting this course of action by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, reported at, (1986) 2 SCC 679 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. S. Jagannathan (supra) held thus: “There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” 45. The courts have set their face against invocation of the doctrine 'fait accompli' to deny the relief. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Muktakar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported at, (2018) 2 ADJ 699 , held thus: “50. Fait accompli is a counsel of despair and cannot be elevated to a doctrine of law. The rule of law is founded on a premise of unquenchable hope and optimism that the arms of law are long enough to reach out to injustice and strong enough to redress it. The rule of moulding of relief by Courts, is an expression of this assurance. The rule of law is founded on a premise of unquenchable hope and optimism that the arms of law are long enough to reach out to injustice and strong enough to redress it. The rule of moulding of relief by Courts, is an expression of this assurance. In such cases, if Courts are constrained by law to grant the relief prayed for in the petition, the Courts are obligated to mould the relief. Moulding of relief by Courts means grant of relief that is not specifically prayed for. 51. Law insists on observance of procedure. Justice demands that there should be no servitude to procedure. 52. The doctrine of moulding of relief by Courts is an indispensable tool in the administration of justice. The facts of this case require that the relief be moulded, to redeem the injustice and secure the ends of rule of law.” 46. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, the order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and the consequential order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad are quashed. 47. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to execute the following directions: I. Petitioner shall be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) forthwith in the respondent institution. II. Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits of service including seniority w.e.f. the date respondent no. 4, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) in the respondent institution. III. The petitioner is held entitled to grant of full backwages of the post of Lecturer (Civics) from the date respondent no. 4, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) in the respondent institution till the date of actual promotion of the petitioner. IV. The full backwages shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 48. The writ petition is allowed.