1972 Supreme(Raj) 247
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.N.Shinghal, J.
Pyarelal Premi - Appellant
Versus
Director of Education (Primary Secondary) Rajasthan, Bikaner and ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 1968.
Decided On : 28-08-1972
The cancellation of a temporary promotion is justified if the Departmental Promotion Committee finds the employee unsuitable for the post.
Headnote:
EDUCATION SERVICE - Promotion - Cancellation of temporary promotion - Legality - Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1966, Rule 27.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Teacher in English, was promoted to Head Master of High School/Deputy Inspector of Schools in 1960. In 1967, he was granted a temporary promotion to Head Master, Higher Secondary School, for a period of six months or till a candidate selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) joins. However, the promotion was canceled the next day due to the DPC finding him unsuitable for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's temporary promotion was justified as the DPC had found him unsuitable for the post. The court also held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that the adverse entries in his confidential reports were not communicated to him before the DPC considered his case, as the authority concerned had taken the view that there was no ground for expunging the adverse remarks.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's temporary promotion was justified? 2. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the fact that the adverse entries in his confidential reports were not communicated to him before the DPC considered his case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's temporary promotion was justified as the DPC had found him unsuitable for the post. The court relied on the fact that the DPC had met on several dates and had examined the petitioner's case on the merits. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that the adverse entries in his confidential reports were not communicated to him before the DPC considered his case, as the authority concerned had taken the view that there was no ground for expunging the adverse remarks. The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.L. Butail v. Union of India and Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 876, which held that there is no question of any injustice having been done to the appellant despite the fact that the Committee had before it the confidential report without there being along with it any representation made by the appellant.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Teacher in English for Multi-purpose and Higher Secondary Schools, by order Ex. 3 dated July 22, 1957. along with several others. It was an appointment on one year's probation. He was thereafter appointed by promotion as Head Master of High School/Deputy Inspector of Schools by order Ex. 4 dated June 17, 1960 He continued to serve as Head Master Junior Higher Secondary School, or a Deputy Inspector of Schools, until 1966, when he proceeded on leave to Agra for the purpose of obtaining the degree of Master of Education. While he was in Agra in June 1967, after completing the M.Ed. course, he received telegraphic order Ex 7 dated June 25, 1967, from the Directorate of Education, by which he was informed that he had been promoted and posted' as Head Master. Higher Secondary School, Dabri, and should join there on the forenoon of July 1. That telegraphic order was confirmed by post, and the Additional Director of Primary and Secondary Education issued formal order Ex. 9 dated June 26, 1967, regarding the petitioner's appointment as Head Master of the Higher Secondary School at Dabri. It was, however, stated in the order that the appointment was for a period of six months or "till a candidate selected by the D P.C. joins" whichever was earlier. It was further stated that the promotion had been granted temporarily on the basis of seniority, in pursuance of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1966, hereinafter referred to as "the Routes". It appears that the petitioner wrote back in reply on June 19, 1967, and the Additional Director issued order Ex. 10, dated June 27, 1967 cancelling his appointment as Head Master, Dabri, The petitioner felt aggrieved and made a representation (Ex 12) on August 6, 1967, and pressed it by his reminder Ex 14 dated October 1, 1967. The Additional Director then sent memorandum Ex. 15, dated November 4, 1967, to the petitioner, informing him that his promotion was not possible because he had not been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Head Master Higher Secondary School/ BSTC Training School. The petitioner could not therefore secure his promotion and has filed the present writ petition to challenge the cancellation of the aforesaid order Ex 9 dated June 26, 1967 by the order dated June 27, 1967, referred to above. A number of grounds have been taken in the petition but I shall refer to those of the grounds which have been selected by the petitioner's learned Counsel for my consideration.
2. It may be mentioned that the State of Rajasthan and the Director of Education have traversed the petitioner's claim altogether, and I shall refer to these portions of their joint reply which bear on the controversy before me. It may be mentioned at the outset, however, that although the petitioner challenged the vires of the Rule 25A of the Rules in the writ petition, his learned Counsel has expressly stated that he would not like to press that point at all.
3. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly qualified for appointment as Head Master of the Higher Secondary School, Dabri, for this has been admitted by the respondents in their reply and the aforesaid order of appointment Ex 9 dated June 26, 1967. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner was informed under the endorsement at the foot of order Ex, 9 that while he might join his new posting on the forenoon of July 1, 1967, he should not do so if his annual grade increment fell due within two months of the issue of that order. It has been urged that rider was added in view of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, and that as the petitioner's annual grade increment was to fall due on July 9, 1967, it did not matter if he did not join at Dabri on the forenoon of July 1, 1967 and intimated the correct position to the Directorate. On these premises, the learned Counsel has argued that there was
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
