IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Seema Nagar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12545 of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2024
Promotion - Assistant Teacher - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 - The court interpreted the rules regarding promotion and direct recruitment, emphasizing the separate treatment of vacancies and the necessity of following prescribed procedures for promotions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, claimed entitlement to promotion as a lecturer under the 50% quota as per the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, after a vacancy arose. The Committee of Management sought direct recruitment instead, leading to the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requisition for direct recruitment was invalid as the management failed to consider the petitioner's eligibility for promotion, which should have been prioritized according to the rules.
Issues: Whether the Committee of Management could bypass the promotion process for the lecturer post in favor of direct recruitment, and whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rules mandate a clear distinction between promotion and direct recruitment, and the management's actions violated these provisions by not considering the petitioner's claim for promotion.
Result: The requisition for direct recruitment was quashed, and the management was directed to forward the petitioner's promotion papers for consideration.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Committee of Management and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner before this Court is working as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in the institution and claims that she is entitled to be promoted as lecturer Economics within 50% quota as prescribed for under Rule-10 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (for short 1998 rules') read with relevant regulations as contained under Chapter-II of Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are five sanctioned posts of lecturer in the institution in the subject of Home Science, Hindi, English, Political Science and Economics. He further submits that there are two lecturers working in the institution on direct recruitment basis as lecturer Home Science and lecturer Hindi. The post in question, i.e., lecturer Economics fell vacant on 16.7.2019 and, accordingly, in view of Rule 10 of the 1998 rules, petitioner deserved to be considered for promotion. However, within three days, the Committee of Management made a requisition online to the Board and forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for direct recruitment against the post in question. The petitioner also made an objection before the District Inspector of Schools and in such circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools directed the Management of the institution vide letter dated 16.10.2019 to clarify the position. In reply to the said letter, the Committee of Management wrote a letter stating therein that the character roll of the petitioner for the year 2010-11 to 2016-17 remained uncertified and, therefore, on the date of occurrence of vacancy, her candidature could not have been considered. The other plea taken was that one Smt. Rekha Rani and Smt. Reena other Assistant Teachers in L.T. grade had set up a claim for promotion and since the case of Smt. Rekha Rani was sub judice before the Court, the post of lecturer (Economics) could not have been filled up by promotion. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if, the post of lecturer Political Science is to be given to Smt. Rekha Rani by promotion and Smt. Reena is to be promoted on other vacant post of lecturer English, the petitioner's claim still survives for the post of lecturer Economics, which falls within 50% quota. He has placed relinace upon Rule-10 of 1998 Rules. In the circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the requisition dated 19th July, 2019 ad 5.10.2019, sent by the Committee of Management for the post in question, i.e., lecturer Economics for direct recruitment.
4. Per contra, it is argued by Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Committee of Management that once the requisition has been made for direct recruitment, no Ad hoc promotion can be made, inasmuch as, according to him, reservation rule would apply and the post in question would not fall in the open category to which the petitioner belongs. He has further tried to defend the action of the Committee of Managment but could not dispute that the matter would ultimately be resolved by the Regional Committee as contemplated under the 1998 Rules.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find there to be no dispute between the parties that out of five sanctioned posts, three posts of lecturer including the post of lecturer Economics is lying vacant. The management's own case is that Smt. Rekha Rani and Smt. Reena have also set up their claim for promotion as lecturer in Political Science and English. In the circumstances, the other post that is lying vacant, remains to be of lecturer Economics. Out of five sanctioned posts as per rule 10 of 1998 Rules, 50% posts in the lecturer's grade are to be filled up from amongst substantively appointed teachers of Trained Graduate Grade. Relevant
The court established that promotion and direct recruitment must be treated separately under the applicable rules, ensuring eligible candidates are considered for promotion before any direct recruitm....
The court established that promotion rights under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules must be honored, and direct recruitment cannot bypass eligible candidates for promotion.
Point of law: It is the duty of the Committee of Management to determine that whether the vacancy belongs to 50% promotion quota or 50% direct recruitment.
Point of law: Administrative instructions - Though there is no specific mention with regard to applicability of roster as prescribed in Chapter XIII of Handbook on Personnel Matters in the Rules 2006....
Point of law: Filling of vacancy - In case the vacancy now available is again filled by promotee candidate, the discrimination already meted to direct recruits shall be perpetuated. On the other hand....
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.