The literal construction of recruitment rules, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the need to consider all consequences when interpreting orders influenced the court's decision.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30th April, 2015 passed in OA No. 3615/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). As rightly noticed by the Tribunal, when the petitioner approached the Tribunal, it was the second round of litigation.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not granted promotion being an Assistant Teacher (Nursery) and she was discriminated with respect to Assistant Teacher (Primary). The petitioner had filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court, which was then transferred to the Tribunal and registered as TA No. 1469/2009. This TA No. 1469/2009 was decided on 28th October, 2010. The operative portion of the order reads as under :-

9. In the matter of interpretation the most cardinal principle is literal constructions with purpose and no provision of the rules should be interpreted in a manner to make the other provision as redundant. The recruitment rules for the post of TGT in the Department of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi promulgated on 11.12.1991 prescribe qualification for TGT for direct recruitment, which is fulfilled by the applicant by promotion from the feeder category and the mode of promotion is by promotion from Assistant Teachers of MCD having minimum 5 years regular service as Assistant Teacher and promotion is to be given to Assistant Teachers of Primary Schools. Accordingly, what has been required on a discerned reading is a feeder category of Assistant Teacher working in MCD in a Primary School. The interpretation given that Assistant Teacher (Nursery) is not an Assistant Teacher (Primary) is not eligible for promotion is an attempt on the part of the respondents to read out the recruitment rules, which cannot be coutnenanced. Assistant Teacher working in MCD in a primary school includes where the schools are run both at nursery and primary level is inclusive of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) working in the primary school and has to be treated as a feeder category for the post of TGT. MCD has wrongly not forwarded the cases of such Teachers to the Education Department of Government of NCT of Delhi, as a result of which claim of applicant has been prejudiced as well as denied promotion as TGT, which is a fundamental right guaranteed to a government servant as held by the Apex Court in Union of India & Others v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & others, 2010 (3) SCALE 272.

10. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, TA is allowed to the extent of directing MCD to deem the category of applicant as a feeder category for the post of TGT in Education Department of Government of NCT of Delhi and forward the claim of applicant to the Government of NCT of Delhi, which, in turn, shall consider the claim of applicant, subject to qualification prescribed under the Rules for promotion as TGT, from the due date, with all consequences, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

3. The complaint of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal in TA 1469/2009 on 28th October, 2010 having attained finality, the petitioner was not granted promotion from the date due. Resultantly, another OA being No. 3615/2013 (subject matter of the writ petition) was filed which was decided by the Tribunal on 30th April, 2015 by the impugned order. The operative portion of the order reads as under :

6. In the aforementioned order, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicant “from the due date, with all consequences”. It is noted that the applicant has not been able to establish her claim that her juniors were promoted as TGT earlier to the date of her promotion. The applicant has also not produced any seniority list that could through light on her seniority vis-à-vis other Teachers (Primary/Nursery) whom she considered as her juniors. The applicant has also not pin pointed the DPC and the year in which she should have b