Supreme Court of India
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATIONversusSH. SUMESH KUMAR ETC.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1216
- Decided
- 24 October 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
Classical and Vernacular teachers are not barred from promotion to Master/Mistress (TGT) and the Tribunal’s harmonious construction of the Recruitment Rules is correct.
Summary
The Chandigarh Administration issued show‑cause notices to several teachers who had been promoted from Classical and Vernacular posts to Master/Mistress (TGT) positions, alleging that the promotions violated the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) Group ‘C’ Recruitment Rules, 1991 which, it claimed, allowed promotion to TGT only from PST teachers. The teachers challenged the notices before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the promotions were not contrary to the Rules and quashed the notices. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Rules indeed barred Classical and Vernacular teachers from being considered for promotion to TGT and whether such an interpretation would cause injustice and absurdity. The Court read the provisions on promotion for both categories harmoniously, concluding that Classical and Vernacular teachers, being a higher cadre, cannot be excluded from promotion to TGT. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) Group ‘C’ Recruitment Rules, 1991, prohibit promotion to the post of Master/Mistress (TGT) from Classical and Vernacular teachers.
- Whether an interpretation that limits promotion to TGT solely to PST teachers is legally tenable.
- Whether such an interpretation violates principles of natural justice and creates absurdity.
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Recruitment Rules.
Subjects
promotionrecruitment rulesservice lawChandigarh Education ServicePST teachersclassical teachersstatutory interpretationabsurdity
Judgment
A CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
v.
SH. SUMESH KUMAR ETC.
(
'I'
OCTOBER 24, 1996 ....
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Se!Vice Law :
Chandigarh Education Se1vice (School Cadre) Group 'C' Recmitment
C Rules, 1991-Rule 4---Promotion-fo the post of Master/Mistress
(TGT)-Wammted only from amongst PST teachers and not from Classical
and Vemacular teachers---PST teacher a feeder category for promotion to the
post of classical and vernacular teaclzer-Held, Classical and Vemacular
teacher cannot be deban·ed from being considered for promotion to the post
D of master/mistress (TGT). Claim that PST teacher alone to be considered for
promotion to the post of master/mistress and not a classical and vernacular
teacher-Post of Classical and vernacular teacher higher to the post of PST
teachel'-Held, such an interp~etation of mle will not only cause great injus-
tice, but will create absurdity by giving unwarranted advantage to the incum-
bents of the lower post over the incumbents of the higher post.
E
The respondents were promoted to the post of masters/mistresses
(TGTs), from the post of Classical and Vernacular teachers. Appellant
issued notice to them, to the effect that the above promotion was contrary
to recruitment rules, as the rules did not provide for the said promotion
F from amongst Classical and Vernacular teacher.
Respondents challenged the notice of the appellant in Central Ad·
ministrative Tribunal. 1be Tribunal interpreting the recruitment rules,
held that the promotion in question, was not contrary to statutory rules
G and quashed the notice.
In appeal to this Court, the respondents contended that since PST
teachers being an eligibk category for promotion to the post of Classical
& Vernacular teachers, if.would be unsound to construe that promotion
to the post of master/mistress
I
can be made only from amongst
.
the PST
II teachers. · ,
712
CHANDIGARHADMN. v. SUMESH KR. [PATIANAIK,J.] 713
Dismissing the appeal, this Court A
HELD : 1.1. The PST teacher being feeder category for promotion to
the post of Classical and Vernacular teachers under the Recruitment
Rules, the said Classical and Vernacular teacher cannot be debarred from
being considered for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress (TGTs).
[718-C] B
1.2. The interpretation that while PST teachers can be appointed as
Classical and Vernacular teachers on promotion, a Classical and Ver-
nacular teacher would be debarred from being considered for promotion
for the post of the Master whereas a PST teacher would alone be con-
sidered for promotion to the post of Master, will not only cause great C
injustice but will create absurdity by giving unwarranted advantage to the
incumbents of the highe1· post of a classical teacher, and such an inter-
pretation cannot be sustained in law. [718-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13239-41 D
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 138 CH of 1995.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellant.
E
Gopal Mahajan and P.N. Puri for the Respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by :
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
F
These Appeals by Special Leave are directed against different orders
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh cancelling the notices
issued by the appellant to the respondents and further directing the appel-
lant not to revert the respondents from the promoted post. But the ques-
tion of law involved being one and the same they were heard together and G
are being disposed of by the common judgment. The short question that
arises for consideration is whether promotions of these respondents on
different dates in the year 1993 to the posts of Masters/Mistress (TGTs) is
contrary to the Statutory Recruitment Rules framed by the Government of ,
India, Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of powers conferred by proviso
under Article 309 of the Constitution called the Chandigaih Education H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A Service (School Cadre) Group 'C' Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter
referred 'to as "The Recruitment Rules").
We will consider the facts in one case for deciding the point in issue,
namely, in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 11122 of
B 1996 which is directed against the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 12.10.1995 in O.A. No. 138/CH/95. In the said
case Suresh Kumar, the respondent was a classical teacher having been
appointed as a Drawing teacher on 30th March, 1972. He was promoted
alongwith three others to the post of Social Studies Master on officiating
basis on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee by
C order dated 24th April, 1993. The said post of Social Studies Master borne
in the School Ca_dre in Group 'C' and r_ecruitment thereto since 1991 is
governed by the Statutory Recruitment Rules. The appellant being of the
opinion that the said promotion is contrary to the Recruitment Rules
issued notice to the respondents as to why the said promotion be not
D withdrawn as the Recruitment Rules did not provide for promotion to the
post of Master/mistress from amongst the Classical teachers. The notice
was issued on 3rd January, 1995. The respondents though filed a repre-
sentation pursuant to the notice issued by the appellant but before any
decision could be taken by the appellant the said respondents approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal with the prayer that show cause notice
E issued by the appellant be quashed and the appellant be restrained from
cancelling/withdrawing the promotion given to the respondents to the post
of Social Studies Master on 29th April, 1993. The appellant appeared
before the Tribunal and reiterated its stand to the effect that the Recruit-
ment Rules do not provide for promotional avenue to the post of Master
F from amongst the Classical and vernacular instructors and, therefore, the
promotion having been made after the Rules came into force the said
promotion is invalid and inoperative. It was also contended that prior to
1991 Rules coming into force appointments to the post of Master within
Union Territory of Chandigarh were being made by direct recruitment and
the departmental candidates were allowed to compete with the candidates
G sponsored by Employment Exchange from time to time.
At this stage it would be appropriate to notice the facts in two other
cases which are similar to the one narrated earlier. In Civil Appeal arising
out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11123 of 1996 the respondents had
H been appointed as Classical Teachers in the Education Department of
l'
1
CHANDIGARHADMN.v. SUMFSHKR.[PAITANAIK,J.] 715
{
Chandigarh Administration in August 1969 and they were promoted to the A
post of Master on officiating basis on the recommendation of Departmen-
tal Promotion Committee on 29th April, 1993. Show cause notice was
issued to them by the appellant on 3rd January, 1995 and they approached
the Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 137/CH/95 and the Tribunal
disposed of the matter and allowed the same by order dated 14th Novem- B
her, 1995, following its earlier decision in OA No. 138/CH/95, which is the
subject matter of the appeal in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 11123/96. In the third appeal the respondents were
appointed as Electrical Works Experience Teacher on 15th September,
1973 which was the post borne in Classical and Vernacular Cadre in the
Education Department of Chandigarh Administration. The respondents C
were promoted to the post of Social Studies Master on 29th April, 1993 on
the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on of-
ficiating basis and show cause notice was issued to them on 3rd January,
1995. They approached the Tribunal which was registered as OA
121/CH/95 and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 9th November, 1995 D
quashed the notice issued by the appellant and restrained the appellant
from cancelling the promotion order dated 29th April, 1993. In OA
138/CH/95 the Tribunal by its judgment dated 12th October, 1995 came to
hold that even though the appellant had issued a notice to show cause as
to why the promotion of the respondents should not be cancelled, but in
view of their stand to the effect that the promotion is contrary to the E
Statutory Rules, the application before the Tribunal cannot be held to be
premature and is maintainable. Though the respondents had taken a stand
that the vacancies which were filled up by promoting them on 29th April,
1993, really occurred in the year 1989-90 and, therefore, Rules then in force
would govern the promotion, the Tribunal rejected the said stand and came p
to hold that the promotion made on 29th April, 1993 is governed by the
Statutory Recruitment Rules which came into force in the year 1991. The
contention of the respondents that the Rules in question are violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution was negatived. But interpreting the Rules of
Recruitment the Tribunal came to hold that a Classical Teacher who is
either BT or B.Ed. can be promoted under the Recruitment Rules as such G
teachers are covered under Clause (ii) of Column 11 and therefore, the
promotion in question cannot be said to be contrary to the Statutory Rules.
Ms. Kamini J aiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the aforesaid interpretation of the Tribunal is wholly er- H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A roneous in as much as under the Recruitment Rules no promotion is
conceived from Classical teacher to that of master, a post borne in the
school cadre of Group 'C' and the Tribunal committed serious error of law
in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Learned counsel for the respondents
on the other hand contended, that the post of Classical teachers being filled
B up by promotion to the extent of 20% from amongst the PST teachers it
would be wholly unsound to construe that the promotion to the post of
Master can be made only from amongst the PST teachers and not from
Classical teachers. In other words PST teachers being an eligible category
for promotion to the post of Classical and Vernacular teachers the said
promoted category people cannot be debarred from getting promotion to
C the post of Master/Mi:>tress (TGTs) and, therefore, the Tribunal did not
commit any error of law in interpreting the Rules by allowing promotion
to the post of Master from the category of Classical and Vernacular
teachers. According to the learned counsel for the respondents if the
interpretation given by the appellants' counsel is adhered to then PST
D teachers may be eligible for being appointed by promotion as a
Master/Mistress (TGT) but if he or she has been already promoted to the
post of a Classical and Vernacular teacher then he or she should be
debarred for being considered for promotion to the post of
Master/Mistress (TGTs). We find sufficient force in the contentions ad-
vanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. For correct interpreta-
E tion of the relevant rules it would be appropriate to notice some of the
provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Rule 4 provides for Method of
Recruitment, Age limit and qualifications etc. which reads as under :-
"The method of recruitment to the said posts, age limit, qualifica-
tions and other matters connected therewith shall be as specified
F in Column 5 to 13 of the said Schedule."
Columns 5 to 13 of the Schedule indicate the qualification and other
matters connected with the recruitment to the different posts. For our
purpose it would be relevant to extract columns 10 and 11 for the post of
G Master/Mistress (TGT) teachers serial no. 3 of the Schedule and Classical
& Vernacular teachers which is in serial no. 4 of the Schedule :-
(10) (11)
3. Masters/Mistres- (i) Direct recruitment : By promotion
ses (T.G.Ts) 60%
H
CHANDIGARH ADMN. v. SUMESH KR. [PATIANAIK, J.] 717
J (ii) By Promotion: 20% (i) From amongst PST A
I teachers who possess
B.A./B.Sc. degree with
required subject
combination.
(iii) By transfer on (ii) B.T./B.Ed. Transfer on B
deputation : 20% Deputation from amongst
persons holding analogous
.
Posts on regular basis in
the State of Punjab &
Haryana in the ratio of
60: 40
c
4. Classical & (i) By direct (i) By promotion from
Vernacular recruitment : 60% amongst P.S.T. teachers
Teachers
(ii) By Promotion: 20% (ii) By transfer on D
deputation from amongst
(iii) By transfer on persons holding analogous
deputation : 20% posts on regular basis in
the State of Punjab and
Haryana in the ratio of
60: 40
E
Though on a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruit-
ment Rules support to a great extent the contention advanced by Ms.
Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant but such
interpretation would result in absurdity if two Rules relating to the appoint- F
ment of Master/Mistress (TGTs) Classical and Vernacular teachers are
read together. The post of Classical and Vernacular teachers under the
Recruitment Rules in question are to be filled up by direct recruitment to
the extent of 60%, by promotion to the extent of 20% and by transfer on
deputation to the extent of 20%. And as per. column 11 promotion can be G
made from amongst the PST teachers. The posts of Masters/Mistress
(TGTs) with which we are concerned in the present appeals under the
relevant rules can also be filled up by direct recruitment to the extent of
20%, by promotion to the extent of 20% and by transfer on deputation to
·the extent of 20%. Column 11, however, indicates that the promotion can
be made from PST teachers who possess B.A./B.Sc degree with required H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A subject combination. Classical and Vernacular teachers are not mentioned
in Column 11 for being considered for promotion to the post of
Master/Mistress. But it is to be seen that while PST teachers can be
\
appointed as Classical and Vernacular teachers on promotion but a Clas-
sical teacher would be debarred from being considered for promotion for
the post of Master whereas a PST teacher would alone be considered for
B promotion to the post of Master. Such an interpretation of Rule will not
only cause great injustice but will create absurdity by giving unwarranted
advantage to the incumbents of the lower post of PST teacher over the
incumbents of the higher post of a Classical teacher, and such an inter-
pretation cannot be sustained in law. In other words the PST teacher being
.C feeder category for promotion to the post of Classical and Vernacular
teachers under the Recruitment Rules in question, the said Classical and
Vernacular teacher cannot be debarred for being considered for promo-
tion to the post of Master/Mistress (TGTs). The Tribunal, therefore, was
wholly justified in giving harmonious construction to both the Rules and
D interpreting the Rule in a manner which would make rules of Recruitment
to both the categories of post namely, master/mistress (TGTs) and Classi-
cal and Vernacular teachers legal and valid.
In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours we find no case has been
made out for interference with the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The
E appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be
no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "promotion"Sign in to search