Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. URMILA ANURAGI versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Urmila Anuragi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 13614 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4470 (14 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                          Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13614 of 2007

Smt. Urmila Anuragi

Versus

State of U.P.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Joint Director of Education 12th Region, Moradabad wherein petitioner has been held to be  ineligible for being accorded promotion.

Brief background of the case is that one Sneh Prabha Rastogi attained her age of superannuation on 30.6.2006. Petitioner claims that by virtue of being from Scheduled Caste category, she was entitled for promotion in the light of Government Order dated 26.6.2003. Claim of petitioner has been considered and thereafter rejected.

Selection and appointment on the post of Principal, Lecturer and L.T. grade teacher is governed by the provision as contained in U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and relevant rules known as U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rule, 1998. Relevant Rule 14 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rule, 1998 is being quoted below:-

14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion-(1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or certificate of Training grade, if any, who possess the qualification prescribed for the post and  have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same.

Note- For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognized institution shall be counted for eligibility unless interrupted by removal dismissal or reduction to lower post.

(2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit.

(3) The Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in  sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix-A.

(4) Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the Management under sub-rule (3), the Inspector shall verify the facts from the record of his office and forward the list to the Joint Director.

(5) The Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in sub-rule (3) and may call for such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in subsection (1) of Section 12 and after the Committee's recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management.

       (6)Within ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Joint   Director under sub-rule (5) the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidates to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy and the Management shall accordingly on authorization under its resolution issue the appointment order in the proforma given in Appendix 'F' to such candidate.

A bare perusal of aforementioned rules would go to show that where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or certificate of Training grade, if any, who possess the qualification prescribed for the post and  have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment has to be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. Criteria for promotion provided for is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 14 provides that the Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in  sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix-A. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 provides that within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the Management under sub-rule (3), the Inspector shall verify the facts from the record of his office and forward the list to the Joint Director.  Sub- rule (5) of Rule 14 provides that the Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in sub-rule (3) and may call for such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director  thereafter has to place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in subsection (1) of Section 12 and after the Committee's recommendation,  has to forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management. Sub -rule (6) of Rule 14 within ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Joint Director under sub-rule (5)  provides that the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidates to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy and the Management shall accordingly on authorization under its resolution issue the appointment order in the proforma given in Appendix 'F' to such candidate.

On the touchstone of Rules quoted above, it is writ apparent that petitioner has been appointed as L.T. Grade teacher on 5.10.2001. Eligibility is five years continuous regular service on the  first day of year of recruitment. First date of the year of recruitment in the present case would be 1.7.2006. Undisputedly on the said date, petitioner has not completed five years of regular continuous service, as such in term of Rule 14 of 1998 Rules petitioner is ineligible to be accorded promotion. On this count there is no shorting coming in the order, which has been passed.

It has been next contended by the petitioner that in consonance with the Government Order dated 26.6.2003 she was entitled for relaxation. Said Government Order is not at all applicable and attracted, inasmuch as said Government Order is in respect of appointment of Lecturer in Government Institution, which are governed by statutory rules known as U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer) Service Rule, `1992. Said rules are not at all applicable and attracted in the matter of selection and appointment of Lecturers of recognized institutions under U.P. Act No. II of 1921, as same has its own special provision for selection and appointment of Lecturers, including promotion, known ass U.P. Act No. V of 1982  and as such rightly benefit  of the  same has not been extended .

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

Dt. 14.3.2007

T.S.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.