Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 534

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER – APPELLANTS
Vs.
SANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4546 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO. 11295 of 2019) (@ DIARY NO. 42671 OF 2018)
Decided On : 06-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, AAG Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Beena, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Promotion to post of Elementary School Headmaster – Feeder and promotional cadre cannot be treated at par.
(2) Interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against interpretation leading to anomalous result.

Headnote:Service Law – Promotion – Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 – Rules 9(5) and 11 – Promotion to post of Elementary School Headmaster – Requisite qualification – Post of Trained Graduate Teacher is contemplated to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion from amongst primary teachers/ Classical and Vernacular Teachers – Post of Trained Graduate Teacher is a promotion post for Classical and Vernacular Teachers as well – Masters appointed under 1998 Rules alone were holding equivalent post to that of members of cadre of TGT. It is such category alone who are entitled to be promoted to post of Elementary School Headmaster – Feeder and promotional cadre cannot be treated at par – Such conversion is only for a limited purpose of 2012 Rules being extended to them and that such Classical and Vernacular Teachers do not become member of the “cadre” eligible for promotion as Elementary School Headmaster – Such Classical and Vernacular Teachers, if eligible, can seek appointment by way of direct recruitment or other than by direct recruitment in terms of academic qualifications and experience contained in Appendix B of 2012 Rules but they cannot be treated en masse as members of Trained Graduate Teacher Cadre – State may consider to provide opportunity to such teachers for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers – Interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against interpretation leading to anomalous result – Order passed by High Court that Classical and Vernacular Teachers become member of Trained Graduate Teacher Cadre after commencement of 2012 Rules violates cumulative reading of 2012 Rules and defeats cause of primary education in State guaranteed by Article 21A of Constitution – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
       Facts of Case:
       Grievance of respondents (Writ Petitioners) in writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution is that post of Drawing Teacher had been converted to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 9(5) of Haryana School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 20121. Two juniors to writ petitioners have been promoted as Elementary School Headmasters, therefore, writ petitioners are also entitled to get promoted from day their juniors were promoted. Stand of State is that writ petitioners are not entitled for promotion to post of Elementary School Headmaster as they do not fulfil the requisite qualification for appointment to post of TGT under 2012 Rules.
       Findings of Court:
       C&V Teachers are treated to be TGT so as to avoid anomalous situation where C&V Teachers after commencement of 2012 Rules would not be governed by any set of Rules. Therefore, expression that such C&V Teachers stand converted to TGT is only to facilitate their service conditions to be governed by the 2012 Rules rather than to upgrade the C&V Teachers as members of TGT Cadre. Feeder and promotional cadre cannot be treated at par by virtue of expression used in Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules that C&V Teachers shall be converted to TGT. Such conversion is only for a limited purpose of 2012 Rules being extended to them and that such C&V Teachers do not become member of the “cadre” eligible for promotion as Elementary School Headmaster. Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules does not use the word “cadre”. Therefore, such teachers cannot be treated to be part of TGT cadre. Such interpretation is further supported by fact that C&V Teacher is a dying cadre and no further recruitment is to be made in these categories.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant Gupta, J.

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in an intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

2. The grievance of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “writ petitioners”) in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the post of Drawing Teacher had been converted to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 9(5) of the Haryana School

Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 (2012 Rules). Two juniors to the writ petitioners have been promoted as Elementary School Headmasters, therefore, the writ petitioners are also entitled to get promoted from the day their juniors were promoted.

3. The contention of the writ petitioners is that they possess senior secondary qualification with 2 years Diploma in Art & Craft and that they also possess qualification of B.A. and B.Ed. Initially, services of the writ petitioners were governed by Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (1998 Rules) which have since been replaced by the 2012 Rules. In terms of Rule 9 (5) of 2012 Rules, the Classical & Vernacular (C&V) Cadre Teachers, such as the writ petitioners, are deemed to be converted to TGT in the relevant subject though no further recruitment shall be conducted to these categories of C&V Teachers. The contention of the writ petitioners is that they fulfil the qualification prescribed for the post of Elementary School Headmaster, therefore, they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post based upon seniority in terms of Rule 11 of 2012 Rules.

4. The stand of the State is that the writ petitioners are not entitled for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster as they do not fulfil the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of TGT under 2012 Rules.

5. The learned Single Bench relying upon Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules held that the C&V Teachers stand converted to TGT Cadre, therefore, they would be entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster. It was held as under:

“As per Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules, for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster, 85% posts have been kept reserved for promotion from amongst the TGTs. Since the petitioners now belong to the TGT Cadre, they would be entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of the Elementary School Headmaster provided they fulfil the qualifications for the post, for which they are claiming promotion. The eligibility for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster is B.A. B.Ed. and since the petitioners fulfil the requisite qualifications for the said post, they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post according to their seniority, which has to be determined by the respondents as per Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules.”

6. The intra court appeal preferred by the State was dismissed for the reason that once C&V Teachers have been considered as the members of TGT Cadre they cannot be denied the promotion post of Elementary School Headmaster against 85 per cent quota earmarked for TGTs.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules only gives a notional designation of TGT to C&V Teachers appointed under 1998 Rules and that the Rule 9(5) of the 2012 Rules cannot be read in isolation. It is contended that under 1998 Rules, there were C&V Teachers and Masters. The equivalent post of TGT in the 1998 Rules is Master, which is promotion post of C&V Teachers such as the writ petitioners. A cumulative reading of various provisions of 2012 Rules does not contemplate to treat C&V teachers as TGT, the Master being a promotion post for C&V Teachers.

8. The minimum educational qualification for C&V Teachers in terms of 1998 Rules in the subject of Drawing was Matric from Haryana S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 534

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER – APPELLANTSVs.SANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4546 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO. 11295 of 2019) (@ DIARY NO. 42671 OF 2018)Decided On : 06-05-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Promotion to post of Elementary School Headmaster – Feeder and promotional cadre cannot be treated at par.(2) Interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against interpretation leading to anomalous result.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER – APPELLANTS
Vs.
SANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4546 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO. 11295 of 2019) (@ DIARY NO. 42671 OF 2018)
Decided On : 06-05-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Promotion to post of Elementary School Headmaster – Feeder and promotional cadre cannot be treated at par.
(2) Interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against interpretation leading to anomalous result.