Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) RULE DB

( 2 ) WITH consent of the parties we propose to dispose of the petition today.

( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the respective stand taken on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 in their respective counter affidavits, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the reliefs prayed for in the petition deserve to be granted.

( 4 ) THE petitioner having completed his post- graduation in Sanskrit from Delhi University in the year 1974 consequent upon an interview for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) he was appointed on 28. 9. 1974 as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Language) in respondent No. 4 school on probation for a period of one year as per the appointment letter, annexure P-4. On completion of the period of probation his services were confirmed with effect from 16. 9. 1974 through letter annexure P-5. In the month of June, 1986 the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) fell vacant in the school on the retirement of S. N. Shastri. Petitioner, who though appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Language) had been teaching Sanskrit continuously from the date of his appointment, in the absence of any Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) was asked by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 4 School to teach Sanskrit to Senior Secondary Classes. On 8. 8. 1986 representation, annexure P-8, was submitted by the petitioner for his appointment/promotion to the vacant post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) stating that he was fully qualified for the post and had also the requisite experience. He besides having done Post Graduation in Sanskrit had also done double Shastri and double Acharya in Sanskrit Literature and Sanskrit Vedant. This representation of the petitioner along with subsequent representations did not find favour with respondent No. 4. The reason assigned was that the petitioner was not entitled for being promoted/appointed to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) since he was appointed only as Trained Graduate Teacher (General) and not as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit ). Petitioner s case is that eversince the date of his appointment, he had been teaching only Sanskrit and no other subject and that too, to the entire satisfaction of respondent No. 4 school and during his tenure he had also earned and been given letters of appreciation for getting excellent results in Sanskrit subject. In the month of June, 1986 when the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) fell vacant on the retirement of S. N. Shastri, the petitioner was asked by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 4 to teach Sanskrit to Senior Secondary Classes and had been performing the duties and discharging the functions and responsibilities of a Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) to the entire satisfaction of respondent No. 4. Being fully qualified for the post and having the requisite experience also, the action of respondents in not promoting/appointing the petitioner as a Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) from June 1986 and not paying him the salary of the post of Post Graduate Teachere (Sanskrit), the respondents are acting arbitrarily. Consequently he has prayed for directions against the respondents to promote him on and from the date when the post of Post Graduate Teacher. (Sanskrit) fell vacant and he started teaching Senior Secondary Classes as Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) and also to pay him regular pay of a Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) on and from the said date.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in its reply filed on the affidavit of M. K. Jain has admitted that the petitioner was M. A. in Sanskrit and was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Language) in the year 1974. The appointment was subject to the approval of the Education Department, which accorded the approval only as a Trained Graduate Teacher. Irrespective of that the petitioner has been teaching Sanskrit and on retirement of the Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document