IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J., MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Siddharth Shanker Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 26389 of 2018, 17095 of 2018, 35632 of 2001, 12262 of 2021, Special Appeal Defective No. 325 of 2019
Decided On : 25-05-2023
Promotion - Teacher Eligibility - U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 - The court interpreted Rule 14, clarifying that the term 'as such' refers to the qualifications for the promoted post and does not necessitate five years of teaching experience in the relevant subject.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998, concerning the eligibility criteria for teacher promotions, specifically whether five years of teaching experience must be in the subject of the promoted post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interpretation of 'as such' in Rule 14 does not require five years of teaching experience in the subject for which promotion is sought, but rather focuses on the qualifications for the promoted post and five years of continuous service in the lower grade.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the requirement of five years of teaching experience applied to the subject of the promoted post and the interpretation of the term 'as such' in Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the words 'as such' in Rule 14 qualify both the qualifications for the promoted post and the requirement of five years of continuous service, but do not necessitate that this service be in the subject of the promotion.
Result: The court ruled that the previous interpretations requiring five years of subject-specific teaching experience for promotion were incorrect.
JUDGMENT :
1. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Ram Prakash Sharma v. Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, 2010(2) ADJ 243, examined the import of term 'as such' occurring in Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 and found himself in disagreement with two earlier judgments of the Court in Smt. Usha Goel v. State of U.P. 2004 (3) ESC 1887 (All) and Shail Kumari v. State of U.P. 2008 ALJ 205 and consequently referred the following question to be answered by a Larger Bench:
(a) Whether the law laid down in the case of Usha Goel (supra) as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (supra) providing that for a teacher to be eligible for promotion under Rule 14 of 1998 Rules, he must have 5 years teaching experience subsequent to his having acquired the essential qualifications prescribed qua the post on which he is to be promoted is the correct law.
(b) Whether the word 'as such' used in Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules refer to the post on which the promotion is to be made from the post in the lower cadre and the qualifications prescribed thereto only and does not require teaching experience of 5 years subsequent to the acquisition of such minimum qualification qua the promotional post.”
2. The reference came to be reiterated by another Learned Single Judge of this Court in the leading writ petition of Siddharth Shanker Mishra v. State of U.P. and Others.
3. This Larger Bench has accordingly been constituted to answer the above reference.
4. We have heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Advocate; Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate; Sri R.K. Singh Kaosik, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya, Advocate; Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Additional Advocate General; Sri J.N. Maurya, Chief Standing Counsel; Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed before us.
5. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before us we deem it appropriate to refer to the provision regulating promotion of a teacher in the institution as it has evolved from time to time. Prior to the introduction of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1982') the promotion of a teacher in C.T. Grade or L.T. Grade to the post of L.T. Grade/Lecturer was governed by regulation 6 of Chapter II of the statutory regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1921'). Clause (1), (2) and (3) of regulation 6 are reproduced hereinafter:
(1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer's grade in the L.T. Grade as determined under Regulation 6, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L.T. or C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer's grade or in the L.T. grade is required.
(2) Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity.
(3) Subject to Clause (2) where more than one teacher in the L.T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject preference shall be given to the teache
K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty v. State of Madras
Rajendra Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad and others
The court clarified that for teacher promotions under Rule 14, five years of continuous service is required, but it does not need to be in the subject of the promoted post.
Teaching experience for appointment as Headmaster must be from recognized regular teaching positions, not from part-time or non-cadre roles, adhering strictly to statutory qualifications.
The court established that eligibility criteria for public employment must be strictly adhered to, and any appointment made contrary to these criteria is illegal. Equity cannot be invoked to override....
The right to be considered for promotion is determined by the rules in force at the time of consideration, not by prior rules, as established by Supreme Court precedent.
(1) Promotion – In absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken.(2) Interpretation of Statute – No word, no phrase and no expression used in a legislation should....
Classification based on educational qualifications for promotion in public service is valid if it promotes academic excellence and has a rational basis.
Time-bound promotion for teachers after 12 years of service is a fundamental right and compulsory under state rules, ensuring compliance with equality principles in the Constitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.