Bansi Lal and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioners in this bunch of seven petitions have a common grievance. They are aggrieved by the order of the Director, Education Department (School) by which their names were removed from the list of Lecturers. As a result, they were not considered for promotion to the Punjab Education Service Class-II in accordance with the Rules. The petitioners pray that the order passed by the Director be quashed and that the respondents be directed to consider their claim for promotion to the Class-II service from the posts of Lecturers. Learned Counsel has referred to the factual position as appearing from the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 7719 of 1995 (Kidar Nath Gupta and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.). It may be briefly noticed.

The petitioners had initially joined service as Teachers/Masters at different points of time. Petitioner No. 8 was the first one to enter the service on October 11, 1954. Petitioner Nos.9 and 16 had joined on February 1, 1959. The remaining petitioners were appointed on January 1, 1960. All the petitioners possess a Post Graduate Degree. They were, thus, eligible for promotion to the posts of Lecturers. They were actually promoted on November 1, 1966. They had continued to work as such for a period ranging from 12 years to 14 years. Petitioners Nos.8 and 9 were promoted as Headmasters on January 16, 1978. Petitioner Nos.1 to 7 and 10 to 15 were promoted on October 8, 1980. Petitioner No. 17 (Ved Parkash) continued to work as a Lecturer. The posts of Lecturers and Headmasters are borne on the Class-III service of the Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection Cadre). Member of Class-III service are eligible for appointment/promotion to the Class-II service. The recruitment to the Class-II service is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Educational Service (School and Inspection) (Class-II) Rules 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Class-II Rules. Rule 10 inter alia provides that the posts in the Class-II service shall be filled up by promotion and by direct recruitment. A quota of 75% has been fixed for promotion while 25% posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment. Still further, it is the claim of the petitioners that for purposes of promotion the Government has vide order dated January 24, 1977 laid down a ratio of 60:40 for filling up the posts from amongst the Headmasters and Lecturers. These instructions provide as under:-

"Order of the Governor of Punjab

In super session of Punjab Government order dated the 11th January, 1977 issued vide Punjab Govt. Endst. No. 5299-3 Educ. IV-C.A. 76/1998 dated the 13th January, 1977 the Headmasters/Headmistresses (both State and Provincialised) Cadre of Government High Schools and Lecturers (both men and women) in Govt. High/Higher Secondary Schools, shall be entitled to promotion to PES Class-II in the ratio of 60:40. Thus in a block of 10 vacancies 1st, 3rd, 6th and 8th vacancy shall be allocated to Headmasters/Headmistresses of State Cadre, 4th and 9th vacancy shall go to the Headmasters/Headmistresses of Provincialised Cadre and the 2nd, 5th, 7th and 10th vacancy shall be allocated to the Lecturers (both men and women).

The promotion to PES Class II (for both Headmasters/Headmistresses) and Lecturers (both men and women) inter se shall be governed in accordance with the existing strength ratio of 60:40 in each cadre.

This order shall be operative with effect from the 3rd December, 1974. the 24th January, 1977.

Sd/-

A.S. Pooni, IAS,

Secretary to Govt. Pb.

Education Department.

The petitioners'' claim that according to the rule as laid down in the above quoted instructions, 4 vacancies in a roster of 10 have to be filed up from amongst the Lecturers.

The petitioners allege that even though they were promoted as Lecturers in or about the year 1966, their further claim for promotion to Class-II service was not considered from the pests of Lecturers in accordance with the rules as they had been posted as Headmasters. However, the petitioners point out that since they had worked for about 14 years or so on the posts of Lecturers, they were entitled to be considered for promotion to the Class-II service against the 40% quota reserved for their category. When the department had failed to do so, they had protested. Their claim was rejected by the Director vide order dated January 9, 1995 on the ground that they had ceased to be Lecturers on their appointment as Headmasters. This, the petitioners urge, was wholly illegal as their mere promotion to the post of Headmaster in the pay scale of the post of Lecturer could not have resulted in deprivation of the benefits ensuing from the long officiation as Lecturers for a period of almost 14 years. Consequently the petitioners pray that the order dated January 9, 1995 passed by the Director rejecting their claim be set aside and that the respondents be directed to consider their claim for promotion to the Class-II service.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter-alia averred that petitioner Nos.1 to 16 have retired as Headmasters while petitioner No. 17 has retired as a Lecturer. Since the petitioners had been granted promotion from the posts of Masters to that of Headmasters, they had no right to claim promotion from the cadre of Lecturers to the Class-II service. In case of petitioner No. 17, it has been averred that since he has retired as a Lecturer, his claim for promotion was being considered. Regarding the remaining petitioners, it has been stated that they having accepted promotion as Head-masters, they were not entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of their having held the posts of Lecturers.

At the outset, it deserves notice that a detailed examination of the matter does not appear to be necessary in view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has considered the matter at length in Baldev Raj Preenja v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1997(1) R.S.J. 571. It has been held that "the loss of lien has to be a conscious act and sound decision. It cannot merely be inferred from the attendant circumstances, especially in face of serious protest by the employee". The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as a Lecturer and to grant him all consequential benefits. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the factual and legal position even in the present cases is not in any way different. In fact, it is the admitted position that a similar view has already been taken in a number of other cases. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision in Gurparkash Singh Mann and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1991 (3) R.S.J. 424 and Inderjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Anr. 1991(3) R.S.J. 430. Mr. Chhinna, learned Counsel for the respondents, has very fairly stated that the State Government had accepted the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench in Baldev Raj''s case (supra).

In view of the above and for the reasons stated in these cases, the writ petitions are allowed. The order rejecting the petitioners'' claim on the ground that they had ceased to be Lecturers are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to Class-II service on the basis of their seniority in the cadre of Lecturers. The needful shall be done within four months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The consequential benefits which may ensure shall be given to the petitioners. These benefits shall include even revision of their retiral benefits. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.