24 October 1996
Supreme Court
Download

CHANDIGARH ADMN. Vs SUMESH KUMAR

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: C.A. No.-013239-013239 / 1996
Diary number: 78346 / 1996
Advocates: KAMINI JAISWAL Vs P. N. PURI


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI SUMESH KUMAR ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      PATTANIK, J.      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is contrary to  the Recruitment  Rules  issued  notice  to  the respondents as to why the said promotion be not withdrawn as the Recruitment  Rules did  not provide for promotion to the post of Master/mistress from amongst the Classical teachers.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

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

                                     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.

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    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.