Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AJAY BHANOT, J.
VISHWESH RAJRATNAM - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF UP AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ A No. 29517 of 2014
Decided on : 02-01-2019
Education laws – Qualification/Promotion – Promotion to the post of Lecturer – Petitioner assailed orders passed by Joint Director of Education, Regional Level Committee and District Inspector of Schools – Whether order was vitiated on account of technical defect which can rectified upon remand is relevant factor – Justified – Held, Order passed by Joint Director of Education, Regional Level Committee, and District Inspector of Schools, are arbitrary, illegal and cannot stand – Petitioner no means to obtain redressal injustice meted out nor did have any alternative avenue of promotion – Infirmity not exist any longer in view of narrative in earlier part of judgment – On basis of material in record, petitioner entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) in respondent institution – Directions issued – Petition allowed (Paras: 30,32, 42 & 48)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner assailed orders passed by Joint Director of Education, Regional Level Committee and District Inspector of Schools – Whether order was vitiated on account of technical defect which can rectified upon remand is relevant factor – Justified.
Findings of the court:
Order passed by Joint Director of Education, Regional Level Committee, and District Inspector of Schools, are arbitrary, illegal and cannot stand – Petitioner no means to obtain redressal injustice meted out nor did have any alternative avenue of promotion – Consequently, petitioner had to continue as Assistant Teacher in college – We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision; normal rule “no work no pay” – Person willing to work but illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do – Therefore direct authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked” – It cannot contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can granted by a court of law and if such directions are issued by a court – Infirmity not exist any longer in view of narrative in earlier part of judgment – On basis of material in record, petitioner entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) in respondent institution – Directions issued.
Result: Petition allowed.
Ajay Bhanot, J.
The matter is taken up in the revised call. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5. In view of the service report dated 09.07.2014 the services on respondent no. 5 is complete.
2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. By the order dated 21.02.2014 and the consequential orders dated 01.03.2014 and 05.03.2014, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Civics in the respondent Institution has been invalidated.
4. Thus aggrieved the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, the order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and the consequential order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad in the instant writ petition.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Jitendra Singh is that the petitioner was the senior most teacher who was eligible for being promoted as Lecturer at the relevant point in time. The claim of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner obtained the M.A.(Political Science) degree in the year 2010 without obtaining permission from the competent authority. The denial of promotion is arbitrary and contrary to the Government Order dated 11.09.1958 and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, reported at,2004 4 ESC 2492. The petitioner is entitled to full backwages of the promotional post. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to other authorities to support his entitlement to full backwages.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner obtained the degree without obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Government Order dated 11.09.1958. The petitioner was rightly denied promotion.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The facts stated in the preceding paragraphs stand established beyond the pale of dispute. The said facts are relevant for a judgment on the controversy at hand.
9. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grate in the respondent College on 16.10.2003. At the time of his appointment, the educational qualifications of the petitioner were M.A. (History) and B.Ed. The petitioner applied for permission to the Principal of the Institution for pursuing the M.A. (Political Science) were as a private candidate. The permission was granted by the Principal of the Institution on 21.07.2008. The petitioner successfully obtained the degree in M.A. (Political Science). The Principal of the Institution directed that the aforesaid qualification be entered in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Civics. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of a valid M.A.(Political Science) degree on the date of consideration of his claim for promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of a valid M.A.(Political Science) degree on the date of consideration of his claim for promotion.
10. It is undisputed that on the date of consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Civics. The petitioner possessed all the educational qualifications required for appointment to the promotional post. Further, the petitioner was the senior most teacher in the aforesaid Institution. The record of service of the petitioner has been unblemished. Accordingly, as per the rules for promotion, the claim of the petitioner for promotion became undeniable.
11. However, by the order dated 21.02.2014, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Civics) has been invalidated. The sole ground for denial of promotion to the petitioner was that the petitioner had obtained the M.A. (Political Science) degree without taking permission from the competent authority, i
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
