Back
1994 Supreme(All) 284
High Court Of Allahabad
M.G. Agarwal, J.
Ranjana Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 9143 of 1988 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6256 of 1989
Decided On : Mar 24,1994
I.N. Singh, A.K. Yadav, V.K. Gupta, R.S. Dwivedi, V.S. Dwivedi
The date of occurrence of a vacancy for the purpose of promotion of teachers is the date when the Committee of Management initiates the process of filling up the vacancy.
Headnote:
UP SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION RULES, 1983 - RULE 9 - U.P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - REGULATION 6 - INTERPRETATION - VACANCY - DATE OF OCCURRENCE - PROMOTION - ELIGIBILITY - CONTINUOUS SERVICE - QUALIFICATIONS - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT - DELAY - INTEREST ON ARREARS.
Fact of the Case:
Two teachers, Smt. Ranjana Agarwal and Smt. Sushila Shastri, filed writ petitions challenging the appointment of each other to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit at Ram Pyari Arya Kannaya Inter College, Chandausi. Smt. Ranjana Agarwal claimed seniority based on her earlier appointment in the L.T. Grade, while Smt. Sushila Shastri claimed that she was eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit based on her five years of continuous service in the L.T. Grade.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the vacancy for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit occurred on the date when the Committee of Management initiated the process of filling up the vacancy, and not on the date when the vacancy actually occurred in physical terms or on the date when the vacancy legally arose by final termination of the contract with the erstwhile employer. The court further held that Smt. Sushila Shastri had completed five years of continuous service in the L.T. Grade on the date when the vacancy occurred and was eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. The court also held that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was not justified in not approving the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri and that the appointment stood approved by operation of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the vacancy for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit occurred on the date when the vacancy actually occurred in physical terms, on the date when the vacancy legally arose by final termination of the contract with the erstwhile employer, or on the date when the Committee of Management initiated the process of filling up the vacancy? 2. Whether Smt. Sushila Shastri had completed five years of continuous service in the L.T. Grade on the date when the vacancy occurred and was eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit? 3. Whether the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was justified in not approving the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and Regulation 6 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to hold that the vacancy for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit occurred on the date when the Committee of Management initiated the process of filling up the vacancy. 2. The court held that Smt. Sushila Shastri had completed five years of continuous service in the L.T. Grade on the date when the vacancy occurred and was eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. 3. The court held that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was not justified in not approving the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri and that the appointment stood approved by operation of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Sushila Shastri and declared that she was legally appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit in Ram Pyari Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Chandausi, with effect from 3rd September, 1978. The court also directed the respondents to pay Smt. Sushila Shastri all admissible dues with effect from 3rd September, 1978, and to pay interest on the amount of arrears due up to 30 November, 1989, at the rate of 12 percent per annum compounded yearly with effect from 1st December, 1989, till the date of actual payment.
M. C. Agarwal, J.
1. THESE are writ petitions by two teachers employed in Ram Pyari Arya Kannaya Inter College, Chandausi, District Moradabad. Since they raise identical disputes they were linked together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. IN writ petition No. 9143 of 1988, the petitioner is Smt. Ranjana Agarwal. The petitioner of writ petition no. 6256 of 1989 is respondent no. 4 in this writ petition and the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Moradabad, U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and the Committee of Management of the aforesaid college are respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Her case is that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said college in L. T. Grade w.e.f. 20th September, 1974 on substantive basis against a clear vacancy. Smt. Sushila Shastri, respondent no. 4 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college in C. T. Grade and she was promoted to the L. T. Grade w.e.f. 8th July 1976. Thus, according to this petitioner she is senior to the respondent Smt. Sushila Shastri. One Smt. Bina Saxena was a permanent lecturer in Sanskrit in the said college. She resigned from service w.ef 20-5-1978. According to petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, that vacancy has not been filled so far. IN September, 1987, the Committee of Management determined and intimated the vacancy to the second respondent i. e. the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission through the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. According to the Committee of Management the aforesaid vacancy arose as a result of resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena and was to be filled up by promotion. IN the said Communication to the respondent no. 2 Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri and the commission is said to have raised objection enquiring how Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri. The Committee of Management is said to have repeated its stand that Smt. Sushila Shastri was senior to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 19th December 1987 the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission returned the service records of the petitioner and the respondent no 4 stating that none of them had completed five years continuous service in the L. T. Grade on 20-5-1978 and, therefore, they were not eligible for promotion against the aforesaid vacancy (A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). According to petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, the date of occurrence of the vacancy in terms of rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 framed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act. 1982 means the date on which the Management determines tie vacancy under rule 4 of the said rules and not the dated 20-5-1978 on which Smt. Bina Saxena had resigned from her post and, therefore, according to her the Commission was in error in requiring five years continuous service as on 20-5-1978 for the petitioner's eligibility for promotion. According to her the Committee of Management determined the vacancy for the first time in September, 1986 and on that date the petitioner had put in more than five years of continuous service. It is contended that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4 because the latter's appointment was approved by the R.I.G.S. on 8-7-1976 and was not effective from 25th July, 1973. R.I.G.S. is alleged to have erred in giving retrospective effect to the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in the L. T. Grade. On these averments the petitioner seeks cancellation of the letter of the respondent no. 2 dated 19th December, 1987 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the Commission had taken the stand that the two teachers aforesaid having not completed rive years continuous service on 20-5-1978 were not eligible for promotion. The petitioner also seeks cancellation of a letter dated Ist March, 1987 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which the R.I.G.S. had
