State Of Haryana And Another v. Sandeep Singh And Others S

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The State of Haryana and the Director, School Education, Haryana, have filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 10325 of 2013) filed by Sandeep Singh, Tarun Yadav and Rakesh Kumar (the respondents herein) has been allowed and they have been held entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster. A direction has also been issued for preparation of a seniority list as per Rule 11 of the Haryana School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2012 Rules’), with a further direction that in case, the respondents fall within the quota of 85% earmarked for the Trained Graduate Teachers according to their seniority, their claims for promotion to the post in question be considered.

Though there is delay of 156 days in filing the instant appeal and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 4196-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Undisputedly, the respondents were earlier working as Art and Craft Teachers (Drawing Teachers). Later on, with enforcement of the 2012 Rules, as per Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9, the post of Art and Craft Teachers was converted to Trained Graduate Teacher (hereinafter referred to as ‘TGT’), which reads as follows:-

“(5) The present Classical & Vernacular (C&V) Cadre consisting of the posts of Sanskrit Teachers, Hindi Teacher, Punjabi Teachers, Physical Training Instructors (PTIs), Art & Craft Teachers (Drawing Teacher), Tailoring Teachers and Table Players and governed by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 shall be converted to TGT in relevant subject and no further recruitment shall be made to these categories when the present incumbent on the notification of these rules vacate the post on his promotion, retirement or any other purpose.”

From the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that the post of Art & Craft Teacher (Drawing Teacher), which was held by the respondents as an effect and impact of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9, stood converted to TGT in the relevant subject. It is further the undisputed position that as per Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules, for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster, 85% posts have been kept reserved for promotion from amongst the TGTs. After enforcement of the 2012 Rules, since the respondents were treated as TGTs, they filed the aforesaid writ petition claiming that as per Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules, they should be considered for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster against 85% quota earmarked for TGTs. The said writ petition has been allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellants only argued that earlier, the respondents were working on the post of Art and Craft Teacher (Drawing Teacher) and at that time, there was no quota for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster/Headmaster for Art and Craft Teachers, therefore, now they cannot be considered for promotion against 85% quota meant for TGT cadre. This contention, in our opinion, has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, because once the respondents have been considered as members of TGT cadre, they cannot be denied promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster, against 85% quota earmarked for TGTs. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants argued that no direction could have been issued to the appellants to prepare a seniority list as per Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules, because it will be difficult for the department to prepare the list of different cadre of teachers, who were earlier teaching different subjects and now have been treated as TGTs in the relevant subjects. This contention is also not acceptable, as the learned Single Judge has only directed to prepare a seniority list as per Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules, and if the respondents fall within the quota of 85% earmarked for the TGTs according to their seniority, they should be considered for promotion to the aforesaid post. As noticed above, every thing has been left to the appellants and the only direction is that they have to prepare a seniority list, after providing hearing to all the concerned persons, as per Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

No merit. Dismissed.