Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHANDER PAL JAIN - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION - Respondent
Decided On : 01/18/1996
EDUCATION - PROMOTION - CHANGE OF CADRE - APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR - DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT, 1973 - RULE 98 - SELECTION GRADE - P.G.T. (HINDI) - T.G.T. (GENERAL) - CHANGE OF CADRE - APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR - DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT, 1973 - RULE 98 - SELECTION GRADE - P.G.T. (HINDI) - T.G.T. (GENERAL).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Language Teacher, was transferred to D.A.V. Higher Secondary School No. 2 but opted to be adjusted against the post of T.G.T. in D.A.V. Higher Secondary School No. 1. He was promoted to P.G.T. (Hindi) but the order was kept in abeyance. He challenged the grant of Selection Grade to another teacher and sought promotion to P.G.T. (Hindi).
Finding of the Court:
1. Change of cadre is permissible and recognized under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rules. 2. Petitioner's change of cadre from Language Teacher to T.G.T. was valid and accepted by him. 3. Petitioner was not entitled to Selection Grade as a Language Teacher or promotion to P.G.T. (Hindi) after the change of cadre. 4. Order promoting petitioner to P.G.T. (Hindi) was illegal and void for lack of Director's approval. 5. Subsequent promotion of petitioner to P.G.T. (Hindi) in 1993 did not validate the earlier illegal order. 6. Petitioner was not eligible for promotion to P.G.T. (Hindi) as he was serving as T.G.T. in another school at the relevant time. 7. Delay in seeking approval for promotion and in filing the writ petition contributed to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's change of cadre from Language Teacher to T.G.T. was valid and accepted by him? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to Selection Grade as a Language Teacher or promotion to P.G.T. (Hindi) after the change of cadre? 3. Whether the order promoting the petitioner to P.G.T. (Hindi) was illegal and void for lack of Director's approval? 4. Whether the subsequent promotion of the petitioner to P.G.T. (Hindi) in 1993 validated the earlier illegal order? 5. Whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion to P.G.T. (Hindi) as he was serving as T.G.T. in another school at the relevant time? 6. Whether the delay in seeking approval for promotion and in filing the writ petition contributed to the dismissal of the petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rules permit and recognize a change of cadre for teachers in aided schools. 2. The petitioner's change of cadre from Language Teacher to T.G.T. was valid and accepted by him as evidenced by his signature in the service sheet. 3. A change of cadre results in a change of entitlement to promotions and benefits associated with the new cadre. 4. The order promoting the petitioner to P.G.T. (Hindi) was illegal and void as it lacked the approval of the Director, as required under Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. 5. The subsequent promotion of the petitioner to P.G.T. (Hindi) in 1993 did not validate the earlier illegal order, as it was a separate and distinct action. 6. The petitioner was not eligible for promotion to P.G.T. (Hindi) at the relevant time because he was serving as T.G.T. in another school, which did not meet the criteria for promotion set out in the relevant guidelines. 7. The delay in seeking approval for promotion and in filing the writ petition contributed to the dismissal of the petition, as it demonstrated a lack of diligence and urgency on the part of the petitioner.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no costs awarded.
( 1 ) AS the facts and the issues involved in these two writ petitions are identical and common, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.
( 2 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner for quashing the letters dated 31. 3. 1975 and 2. 8. 1975 and order dated 25. 7. 1974, awarding selection grade to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to promote him to the post of P. G/j (Hindi), by enforcing the order contained in letter dated 17. 2. 1975 and-by cancelling the order dated 31. 3. 1975.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Langage Teacher on 10. 10. 1962 in the then D. A. V. Higher Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He was confirmed to the said post with effect from 11. 10. 1963. According to petitioner, the said school was bifurcated into two schools namely, D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 1 and D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 2 Before the bifurcation of the school, there were five sanctioned posts of Language Teachers and in fact, five Language Teachers were working in the school. After the bifurcation of the school, three Language Teachers were posted in D. A. V. Higher secondary School No. 1 and two Language Teachers were posted to D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 2. Shri Ram Nath and Shri Nand Kishore Vats were posted in D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 1 against the two posts of Language Teachers (Sanskrit) and Shri Som Nath was posted against one post of the Language teacher (Hindi ). Shri T. C. Sharma and the petitioner were posted in D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 2 against two posts of Language Teacher, (Sanskrit) and (Hindi), respectively.
( 4 ) ON the bifurcation, the petitioner was not prepared to join D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 2 as a Language Teacher and wanted to get himself posted in D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 1, in view ot his personal interest. The Management agreed to retain the petitioner in D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 1 as T. G. T. teacher on the request of the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Singhal who was initially posted at School No. 1 as T. G. T. with the mutual consent of the petitioner was transferred to D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 2. Since the petitioner had requested to be posted and retained in D. A. V. Senior Secondary School No. 1 as T. G. T. , Shri Prem Singh Khasana who w,s an Assistant Teacher till that time was promoted to the post of Language Teacher to D. A. V. Higher Secondary School No. 2. , against the vacancy created o;. transfer of the petitioner and on subsequent adjustment against the post of T. G. T Shri Prem Singh Khasana, the respondent No. 5 was subsequently promoted to the Selection Grade on 25. 5. 1974 with effect from 5. 9. 1971. The petitioner, however, was promoted to the post of P. G. T. (Hindi) by an order issued by the Education Officer dated 17. 2. 1975. Subsequently however, through another order of the Education Officer on 17. 3. 1975, the order promoting the petitioner to the post of P. G. T. was kept in abeyance. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders according Selection Grade to the respondent No. 5, and also keeping the order of promotion of the petitioner in abeyance by the Education Officer, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
( 5 ) MS. Monica Banerjee appearing for the petitioner very forcefully and competently submitted before me that the petitioner never requested for a change of cadre or to be absorbed in the post of T. G. T. and that there was no option exercised by the petitioner at any point of time to be adjusted against the post of T. G. T. (General ). For all intent and purposes, the petitioner continued to be a teacher teaching language and therefore, was entitled to be given a Selection Grade and also to be promoted as P. G. T. (Hindi ). Accord
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
