Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3323
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
Priyanka Shukla - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3035(S/S) of 2014
Decided On : 28-10-2014
For the Petitioner: D.R.Misra
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Rajeev Singh Chauhan
The main legal principle established is that teaching experience gained in any local area, whether rural or urban, should be considered for determining promotion eligibility.
Headnote:
Teaching Experience - Promotion Eligibility - Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 8(3), Rule 18 - Rule 22(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, sought consideration for promotion to the post of Headmistress/Assistant Teacher. The dispute arose regarding the counting of her teaching experience in rural areas for promotion eligibility in the urban cadre.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's teaching experience in rural areas should be counted for determining her eligibility for promotion in the urban cadre. The appointing authority was directed to prepare the eligibility list by considering services rendered in any local area and proceed with the promotion process accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the services rendered by the petitioner in the rural cadre qualified for counting as teaching experience under Rule 8(3) for promotion eligibility in the urban cadre.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the relevant rules and the Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases to establish that the teaching experience gained in any local area, whether rural or urban, should be considered for determining promotion eligibility.
Final Decision: The court directed the appointing authority to prepare the eligibility list by counting the services rendered by the candidates in any local area and proceed with the promotion process within one month.
Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.: -
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Singh Chauhan for respondents no.3 and 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent, this writ petition was heard finally at the admission stage itself as per Rules of the Court.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by appointment letter dated 9.2.2009 issued by the office of District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur. In pursuance thereof, she joined at Primary School Patrasa, Development Block Sakaran District Sitapur (rural area) on 13.2.2009. By order dated 1.6.2010, she was transferred from Primary School Patrasa to Primary School Peetpur, Development Block Ailiya, District Sitapur (rural area). The State Government vide Government Order dated 22.12.2010 framed a policy for transfers of assistant teachers working in primary schools in rural areas to urban areas in an effort to fill up large number of vacancies in primary schools in urban areas. The petitioner exercised option for transfer to urban area, which was accepted by the respondents. A formal order, in this regard, was issued by the office of District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur on 13.9.2011 transferring the petitioner to Primary School Kajiyara, Sitapur (urban area). She joined there on 14.9.2011. These facts are not in dispute between the parties.
3. The service of the petitioner is regulated by Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'. Rule 4 prescribes that there shall be separate cadres of service for each local area. Thus, with the transfer of the petitioner from rural area to urban area, her cadre got changed. Rule 22 (2) provides that " The seniority of a teacher who has been transferred from one local area to another in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 shall be placed at the bottom of the list of teachers of the corresponding class or category pertaining to the local area to which he has been transferred, as on the date of orders for transfer are passed, such a persons shall not be entitled to any compensation." In accordance with the said Rules, the petitioner was placed at the bottom of the list of assistant teachers working in different primary schools under the Board in the urban area cadre. A copy of the said seniority list is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, wherein, the name of the petitioner figures at serial no.5. These facts are also not in dispute between the parties.
4. The petitioner claims right to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmistress of Junior Basic School/Assistant Teacher in Junior High School. Her case is that she possesses the minimum qualification and experience and thus, fulfills the eligibility for being considered for promotion. However, the respondents though have finalised the promotion to these posts in the rural cadre, have unnecessarily deferred promotions in the urban areas. It is contended that the District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur has sent a reference to the Secretary, Basic Education Board seeking clarification as to how the teaching experience is to be counted; whether the service rendered in rural area qualifies for reckoning the teaching experience contemplated under Rule 8 (3) or not. It is submitted that no such clarification was required as the provisions of Rule 8 (3) are clear and unambiguous. It is thus contended that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, after counting the services rendered by her in rural area towards her teaching experience.
5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel and Sri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer contended that the petitioner herself opted for urban cadre and in consequence whereof, she was transferred to urban cadre on 13.9.2011, where she joined on 14.9.2011. It is contended that the petitioner
