The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'adjustment' and 'promotion' and the relevance of willingness for adjustment in determining the calculation of seniority for Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) under the Rules of 2006.

The petitioners, before this Court, are Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade), who are presently teaching in Government Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Uttarakhand. The controversy, which they have raised before this Court, in short, is that their claim before the Education Authorities for calculating their seniority from an earlier date has been rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. All the petitioners before this Court were appointed in the year 2009 as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) by way of “adjustment” i.e. from their parent cadre in “Elementary Schools” to Higher Secondary Schools. The petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools and, thereafter, some of them were promoted as Head Master in Government Primary Schools and others were promoted as Assistant Teachers in Senior Elementary Schools (Class VI to VIII), which is known as “Junior High School”. At the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2009, their services were adjusted as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Government Secondary Schools, in the year 2009. The common factor in the case of all the petitioners is that they were either teacher in Government Junior High Schools or Head Master in Government Primary Schools prior to their so called “adjustment” on transfer. Further, it must be noted here that the pay scale of Head Master in a Primary School and pay scale of an Assistant Teacher in Junior High School is the same.

3. In the State of Uttarakhand Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which are known as “Uttaranchal Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Services Rules, 2006 (from hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2006”). Inter alia, the aforesaid Rules provide for selection/appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). Under the said Rules of 2006, 70% of the posts were to be filled by way of direct recruitment. 25% of the posts were to be filled from amongst the Head Masters of Primary School, Assistant Teacher Junior High School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School working under the Government Elementary Education by way of adjustment. The remaining 5% of posts were to be filled by way of departmental written examination from amongst the Assistant Teacher Primary School, Head Master Primary School, Assistant Teacher Junior High School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School working under Government Elementary Schools who fulfill qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of Rules of 2006.

4. All the petitioners, before this Court, were appointed under the 25% quota reserved for such teachers and their case before this Court is that they were not “promoted” to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) but what happened in their case was a simple “adjustment”! According to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2006, in the case of the present petitioners, under the 25% quota defines about “adjustment” and not “promotion” whereas in the case of 5% quota, the word “promotion”, is used, as 5% of the posts are to be filled from amongst the Primary School Teachers by way of departmental written examination. It further clarifies as to who are the teachers who will have to be adjusted against 25% of the vacant post of Teachers of (L.T. Grade). Rule 16 of the Rules of 2006 clearly speaks about recruitment by way of adjustment/promotion, which shall be made on the basis of seniority, subject to the rejection of unfit. It further states that only such teachers will be adjusted who “are willing for such adjustment”. It further says that such teachers who were to be “adjusted”, must have the qualifications required for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). These are the same qualifications which a direct recruitee should have against the 70% posts of direct recruitment. Therefore, although 25% posts were to be “adjusted” from amongst the teachers, such as petitioners, who were either teaching as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School or who were