Naveeta Rani v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP 17066/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:06/09/2016 Naveeta Rani ............Petitioner vs State of Punjab and others .............Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Madhav Pokhrel,Advocate for the petitioner Mz.Sudeepti Sharma,DAG Punjab for respondents 1 to 4 Mr.KK Garg,Advocate for respondent no.5.

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral) Petitioner joined as an ETT Teacher in the female cadre on 10.12.2001 for teaching the students of Primary schools. She possessed the qualification of +2, B.A. And ETT. Subsequently on 31.10.2005 she acquired the qualification of B.Ed.

Director Public Instruction (SE) Punjab issued a circular dated 21.2.2005 requiring the forwarding of cases of eligible JBT/C&V teachers for promotion as Masters/Mistresses in their respective promotion quota and for the Male and Female category. It was specified that the essential qualification of B.Ed., for promotion as per the statutory rules should have been acquired by 31.3.2005. Since the petitioner had not acquired the qualification of B.Ed. by the said date, her name was not forwarded. Prayer made in the present petition is for a mandamus to promote the petitioner to the post of Social Studies Mistress from 20.11.2005 i.e. the date her junior-Narwinder Singh/respondent no.5 was promoted as Social Studies Master.

Upon notice written statement has been filed by the official respondents and private respondent no.5.

In the written statement it is submitted that the posts of Masters/ Mistresses is governed by the Punjab State Education Class-II (School Cadre)Service Rules,1978 (for short 1978 Rules). Rule 3 of 1978 Rajinder Parshad Joshi 2016.09.07 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP 17066/2015 Rules read with Appendix A provide for a separate cadre between Male and Female and thus separate seniorities have been maintained in the two cadres. It is not disputed that even the post of JBT/ETT Teachers is governed by Punjab Primary Cadre School Rules,1997 which envisage a separate cadre between Male and Female in the ETT Cadre. Thus, respondent no.5-Narwinder Singh does not have a common seniority with the petitioner who belongs to female cadre.

At the time of hearing it is not disputed by the counsel for the parties that a learned Division Bench of this Court in Neelam Rani v State of Punjab,2010(1)SCT 588, decided on 8.1.2010 had struck down the rule providing for a separate cadre for Males and Females and commanded that a joint seniority list shall be framed and future appointments would be made out of such seniority. However, the judgment was to operate prospectively and all promotions made earlier were protected. In the present case respondent no.5 stood already promoted in the year 2009 and was thus, protected from any disadvantage. It is not in dispute that prior to the decision in Neelam Rani's case (supra) in the female cadre of the petitioner in the ETT Cadre, none junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Mistress as also after framing of the joint cadre. Thus viewed, this petition is liable to dismissed. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this writ petition the same is hereby dismissed.

06/09/2016 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Rajinder Parshad Joshi 2016.09.07 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document