High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23823/2017dismissed

Rajan Kumar v. State Of Haryana Others

2023-03-09Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: Rajan Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

! !

****

! ! "

Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster (ESHM) under 85% quota, as the post of Drawing Teacher has been converted to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 9(5) of the Haryana School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 (the Rules) and the claim of the similarly situated Drawing Teachers have been considered vide order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P-8) and directing the respondents not to discriminate the petitioner as he belongs to Classical & Vernacular (C&V) Cadre and the juniors to him, who belong to C&V Cadre i.e. Hindi Teacher, Sanskrit Teacher and Punjabi Teacher, have been promoted but the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and further

directing the respondents to prepare a joint seniority list of different District Cadre at State level under the Rules.

The short reply dated 11.07.2019 filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is already on record.

Today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even on 12.07.2019, the situation remained the same. As per the contents of the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher vide order dated 11.08.

2004 on the recommendations of Haryana Staff Selection Commission; that at the time of appointment, services of the petitioner was governed by the Rules known as 'The Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Services Rules, 1988, according to which, the appointing authority to the posts of Sanskrit Teacher, Hindi Teacher, Punjabi Teacher, Physical Training Instructor (PTI), Art and Craft Teacher (Drawing Teacher), Tailoring Teacher and Table Player, was the District Education Officer of the concerned District; that the seniority was maintained at the district level of the aforesaid posts as all the posts had one Cadre i.e. C&V and the inter-se-seniority of the members was to be determined by the length of service; that the services of the petitioner is governed by the Rules, 2012; that the petitioner is working as Drawing Teacher i.

e. C&V Cadre which has now been converted to TGT under Sub Rule (5) of Rule 9 and that under the Rules, the promotion avenue for a TGT is on the post of ESHM and 85% posts of ESHM are to be filled amongst the TGTs, but the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of ESHM was not considered by the authorities whereas such C & V Hindi Teachers has been promoted.

Learned State counsel points out that as per the short reply, the similarly situated six Drawing Teachers (Sandeep Singh and others) were promoted in compliance of order of passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, as the joint seniority list of TGT could not be prepared by the department in time. After finalization of the seniority list of TGT, the promotion order of Sandeep Singh and others was withdrawn vide order dated 22.02.2019 after giving them opportunity of hearing. The judgment passed by a Division Bench in State of Haryana Vs. Sandeep Singh and others, LPA No.1992 of 2014, decided on 03.12.2014, affirming the judgment dated 20.05.2014 passed in CWP-10325-2013, has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana and another Vs. Sandeep Singh and others', 2019(6) SCC 453. Learned State counsel, hence, submits that the petitioner's case is now squarely covered against them, by the aforesaid judgement.

I have heard the learned State counsel and have also gone through the case file.

A perusal of the record would show that some employees had filed CWP-10325-2013. The Coordinate Bench had interpreted the provisions of Rules to hold that once Classical and Vernacular (C & V) Teachers have been designated as TGT, then the Classical and Vernacular (C & V) Teachers are Masters for all intents and purposes and hence, entitled to be considered for the promotion as ESHMs. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. However, the State of Haryana filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which as noticed above, was accepted resulting in reversal of the judgments passed by the learned Single

Judge as well as the Division Bench.

The issue involved in the present case has been decided upto Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2019 passed in SLP (C) No. 11295 of 2019 titled as 'State of Haryana and another Vs. Sandeep Singh and Others', and as per the judgment, the C&V Teachers cannot be treated to be part of TGT Care and the feeder and the promotional cadre cannot be treated at part by virtue of the expression used in Rule 9(5) of the Rules. Even the promotion granted to the similarly situated 06 Drawing Teachers (Sandeep Singh and others) has been withdrawn vide order dated 22.02.2019. Truly speaking, the contentions urged before this Court are no longer res integra, having been decided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh' s case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the Scheme of the Rules, held as under:

! " # "$%&"'()* ! ! + &, + &"& )'$$'$ + &"-./ '!"*'$% !/0/ ! " % !/0/ !-1*'$&!%!$%" 2&$ !1 3'& $ "! !$ 1 ! 4 !" )! %!$" '%"

5/ %%$)!%!" "./ '!"%!! '$$'$ + &"/ ,, + &"'$%& !' !'! $ %" "! ( ! " ! "'%&"- '$$&1 '

&& " . / '!" 6 '- %" "! " %!$%"!./ '!"!$"+ &, ,, + &" /7 &'

!%"8! "!*1) 1!'!'! $

%!$ " 0!

! !'9 : ) 1 !"

; !9;%&$ )(!-!%!$ &7 &'

" 1 !"<=%!'%">?/ ./ '!"

/%"/0/"'$%& *&& %*1!'!'! $

*1 %!$ !$ $ " %!$ !1 '!"9. / '!" & $ 8%%= ? + &" %!"'!*" '

$' &'

" =%!'!!'!'! $'! '* "" )! "-& $%!"'!*" '

$'7 &'

" =%!' ! %%$! *1!'!'! $'!

'* ""/ &'

"!&& %%"/0/*1) 1%!$ ! ?@89?8 1 !;%&$ 2&$ !12 '

A!?@89?8 ) & "B$ !#" 1 !?

'&!2 '

?2A! ?@89?8) & "B$ !#" 1 !?

'&!2 '

?2A ''! ' ) C/2 +'

C!$" !' ! + & " "" !$ $ $ " !

!A ! 3!3' !1 !"7 ( &) & "B$ !#" 1 ! ?8 2 2' 1 !"< =%!' " !$ !1 / '! +/9 & ""'

& .! ' & ! . / '! / "- %" /0/ " %!$%"!./ '!" ")&&

/!!- ! ! + &" ")" "!" %% ! ,, + &" & )! & 7 ( & %" $$*!" '

! /0/ 6 " " ' '

&) !&*%!$%"2&$ !13'&

$ "! !$" 7 &'

" %!"'!* 8%%= ? % !' & !&1() + & + & + &"/0/ $ " /!

/ '!!&( " *4' %%

+ &" '& "!" %% *!'

"+ &"/!!- "!" %% !$" ,, + &" !&1/!

/ '!"!$" + &"/%" "! ! ,, + &"!"

5 /0/ ! + &" " ' %!$ %" ! . / '!"

,/! !

$ %%&& ""* " %=%!"" " ./ '!" (!*1 ,, + &"" &&*'(! /0/!&( " *4'D/7 "")!" './ '!" " % !

%" /0/ - ! %!$ ' & ! ,, + &" ) " %" "! )' & " * ! "/0/ "+ & + &" () =%!""&

+ & )'$ " %%$" && *$ %"/0/&1 ''! ')7 &'

" %!"'!* + &" /! + &") &") ./ '!" !! */0/" " ( $ & "" )!./ '!"

!'$$'$ + &") &* (!*1 1 " + &" /!!- =%!"" " ' . / '!" " '(!/0/"&1 '& !"!(''"*

(!*1 + &"!

! % !

./ '!"

" $$*!" /0/ ! / ! %!$ & '

! '

*! % !*1(! =%!"" "+ &, + &" . / '!" " && * '(! /0/ 3 ' '(!""&1! &$% !%" + &"* = $ " ' . / '!" *'$ $$*! '

!D& *&!%!$ "2&$ !13'& $ "!+ & , + &" " " )! '

!D /!!- " ' '!"'

*! *% !/0/'

!3 '!%! " !!" %%!*1 ' ./ '!" 1 '

! !!!'! $"*$ "'

!" 3 './ '!"-& *&-'

"# %%$*1) 1 !'!'! $!! *1!'!'! $!$"

$' 7 &'

" =%!' ' 8%%= ? + &" * 1 '

* ! $ "" " $$*!" /0/ !/3 $ 1'"!%!(%%! 1" ' '!" ! %%$ "/0/"D

! " #"$%! &

$$ &

% &'$()*( $&$+&$,- +.& "

!$ & $

'$()*( $&$ +&$,-+.& & &! "! & /

! !

&3 12 3 41

"$3 41