1. Teacher officiated in a higher post and sought promotion, which was denied due to the absence of a prescribed promotion channel from the lower cadre. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 886
1997(7) Supreme 59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Delhi Administration through Chief Secretary Delhi & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Nand Lal Pant & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos 4615 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3828 of 1997)
Decided on 7-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the appellants : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, and D.S. Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Rajesh Goel and S.K. Misra, Advocates.
Important Points
An employee cannot claim promotion as a right by jumping the regular channel of promotion based solely on acquired qualifications or having officiated in a higher post, especially where recruitment rules provide no such promotional path.
Subject
Employment Law - Promotion and Seniority
Act Referred
Headnote
Appeal disposed of accordingly. Service Law-Respondent was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher-On a post of PGT (Sanskrit) falling vacant, respondent was asked to officiate in said post-Claim for promotion to said post-No direct channel of promotion from TGT (General) to PGT (Sanskrit) in recruitment Rules-Respondent as of right was not entitled to the promotion to said post-Since respondent had been working in that post since 1986, appellants directed to create a supernumerary post of PGT (Sanskrit) and allow respondent to continue in that post-Decision not to be treated as a precedent. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an employee is entitled to promotion based on qualifications and officiating experience despite the absence of a prescribed promotion channel. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Recruitment rules provide no direct promotion channel from TGT to PGT (Sanskrit), and the specific post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. (Para 3 )
4. No employee is entitled to bypass the regular channel of promotion solely based on acquired qualifications or experience gained while officiating in a higher post. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal disposed of with directions to create a supernumerary post for the respondent until retirement, without creating a legal precedent. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does officiating in a higher post or possessing required qualifications entitle an employee to promotion if no promotion channel exists?
No. No one is entitled to jump the regular channel of promotion merely on the basis of qualifications acquired or having officiated in a higher post. (Para 3 )
7. Can an employee be promoted to a post reserved for a specific category if they do not belong to that category?
No. An employee is not entitled to promotion to a post reserved for Scheduled Castes if they do not belong to that category. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. Nand Lal Pant, the first respondent was appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on September 28, 1974 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-550/-. He was confirmed in that post. The post of Post-Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) fell vacant after retirement of one S.N. Sastri. Since the first respondent had the qualification of Sanskrit, he was asked to officiate in the said post of Graduation Teacher (Sanskrit). He made representations from time to time for his promotion to the said post. Since it was rejected on the ground that there was no channel of promotion from the cadre of TGT to the cadre of PGT. Sanskrit. Consequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 3794/93 in the High Court. The Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment dated July 31, 1996 allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to promote him w.e.f. 1986 with all consequential benefits. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. It is now for the first time that stand has been taken by the Petitioner (respondent in the writ petition) that by letter dated December 22, 1992 the School was informed that the Deputy Director (East) was "pleased to accord the clearance for P.G.T. (Sanskrit) reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates". Pursuant to that it would appear that one Rajbir Singh belonging to Scheduled Castes was appointed w.e.f. September 30, 1993 and eversince he was working in the said post. As per the recruitment Rules, there is no direct channel of promotion from TGT (General) to PGT (Sanskrit). As a consequence, the first respondent as of right is not entitled to the promotion as PGT (Sanskrit), that too in a post reserved for Scheduled Castes. But since the first respondent has been working since 1986 in PGT (Sanskrit) from June, 1986 when the post fell vacant, the facts and circumstances, we think that the appellants have to be directed to create a supernumerary post of PGT (Sanskrit) and allow the first respondent to continue in that post till he retires. That post may be created in any school or directorate as the case may be. He would be entitled to the scale of pay of PGT (Sanskrit) from the date of the creation of the post. This direction to adjust him by creation of supernumerary post and to permit the first respondent to continue in that post should not be treated as a precedent in any other case. No one is entitled to jump the regular channel merely on the basis of by qualification acquired or the basis of having officiated in a higher post.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
********
