The main legal point established in the judgment is that an eligible candidate's legitimate claim for promotion cannot be denied on the ground of not possessing the required qualification at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting, especially when the candidate had submitted sufficient evidence of meeting the eligibility criteria.

ORDER :

1. Precisely the question, which has fallen for consideration in the case at hand is “whether promotion to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) Chemistry, who was a Trained Graduate Teacher, could be denied for allegedly hers having not submitted Masters Degree in Chemistry. especially when she had submitted a provisional certificate alongwith mark-sheet, showing her to have acquired the degree of masters in Chemistry?”

2. For having bird’s eye view, necessary facts as emerge from record are that on 26.11.1994, petitioner joined as Trained Graduate Teacher in the education Department and in that capacity worked till 13.7.2010. After having obtained Masters degree in Chemistry on 28.3.2008 from Annamalai University, petitioner informed the Principal of the School concerned, who vide communication dated 16.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) apprised Director Higher Education, the factum with regard to petitioner having completed Master of Science (Chemistry) enabling Department to include her name in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). Careful perusal of communication dated 16.8.2008 issued under the signature of Principal Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Shimla reveals that the complete case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of PGT Chemistry/Lecturer Chemistry(School Cadre) was sent to the office of Director Higher Education. However, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) on 13.7.2010 as is evident form communication dated 13.7.2010, Annexure P-4, whereas, as per seniority No. 4926 of the petitioner in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers, she ought to have been promoted in the year 2008, ahead of private respondents, who were promoted as Lecturer (School Cadre) on 16.7.2008. Perusal of promotion orders dated 16.7.2008 and 12.8.2008, whereby Trained Graduate Teachers junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) and had completed master degree after 31.12.2007, reveals that the candidate, who had completed master’s degrees after 31.12.2007 were considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). Though, the petitioner completed master degree on 28.3.2008, as is evident from Annexure P-2 provisional certificate issued by Annamalai University, but her case was not considered by DPC held on 15.7.2008.

3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid illegal action of the respondents, petitioner filed representation to the Director Higher Education, vide Annexure P-8 and P-9, but since no attention was paid to the aforesaid request made by petitioner, she was compelled to approach this Court, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“1. The petitioner may be ordered to be promoted from the due date i.e. as on dated: 16.7.2008, when the persons junior to the petitioner were wrongly promoted before her, along with all the consequential benefits.”

4. It may be noted that earlier the petitioner filed writ petition before this court, which was transferred to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and on its abolition, same has again been transferred to this court and registered as such.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially the reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, this court finds that the facts as have been taken note herein above, have not been disputed rather admitted in the reply filed by respondents. Respondents in their reply have tried to justify their action in not promoting the petitioner alongwith private respondents on the ground that at the time of convening Departmental Promotion Committee on 15.7.2008, petitioner had not obtained the Master’s Degree. Apart from above, it has been stated in reply that since Master’s Degree wa