AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.No,Name of post,Redesignated to,
1.,"Professor Vocationalisation of
Secondary Education(VOSE)",Deputy Director (VOSE),
2.,"Professor, Integrated Education for
the Disabled (IEDC)",Deputy Director (IEDC),
3.,"Professor, Teacher Education
Education (T.E).â€",Deputy Director (T.E.),
,Name of post,Feeder of,Prescribed Qualification
5.,Tutor (SCERT),"-Dy. Director-post -Language -
T.E -VOSE â€"IED","2 nd Class M.A in English Literature with
honour at Graduate level in English or M.A
in applied linguistic plus certificate of
twelve week course from CIEFL.
6.,Audio Producer,"Dy. Director-3 post -T.E -VOSE
â€"IED","Atleast 2nd Class Master Degree in
Science/Social Science/Art plus
experience in the development of
Radio/TV
8.,"Vocational Guidance
Officer (SCERT)","Dy. Director-3 post -T.E -VOSE
â€"IED","Atleast 2nd Class Master Degree in the
subject with atleast 2nd Class B.Ed/BT
with not less than 3 years teaching
experience in a recognized institution.
Desirable: i) A 1st Class Master Degree
or Research Degree. Ii) Working
knowledge of Mizo language.
the same cadre, the petitioners should also have be considered for the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion) cannot be read into the Rules of",,,
1987 and the 1988 Rules, as they are not of the same cadre. Just because the petitioners are having the same pay scale as the private respondents and",,,
they are all eligible to be considered for the post of Deputy Director (VOSE), Deputy Director (IEDC), Deputy Director (TE), the same does not",,,
enclothe them with any right to be included in the feeder post for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion).,,,
In the case cited by the petitioners counsel i.e., Union of India & Others v. Atul Shukla & Others (Supra), the Apex Court had to decide whether",,,
the respondent, who at the relevant time held the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in the Indian Air Force were entitled to continue in service up to",,,
54 and 57 years, depending upon whether they were serving in the Flying or Ground Duty Branch of the Force. The Apex Court held that",,,
classification made for the purpose of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers could not withstand scrutiny on the,,,
touchstone of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the Apex Court held that classification of employees based on the method of their recruitment",,,
was impermissible and that there could be any differential treatment between employee, directly recruited vis-Ã -vis another who is promoted. So long",,,
as the two employees are a part of the same cadre, they cannot be treated differently either for purposes of pay and allowances or other conditions of",,,
service, including the age of superannuation.",,,
In the present case, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been appointed as Tutors on the basis of 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules, while the petitioners",,,
have been appointed as Audio Producer and Vocational Guidance Officer on the basis of different Recruitment Rules, which has not been produced",,,
by either of the parties. Thus, though the Pay scale of the petitioners and the private respondents are the same, they belong to different streams, as the",,,
1987 Rules and 1988 Rules are only meant for appointment to the post of Tutor and promotion to Chief Tutor from the feeder post of Tutor only. The,,,
petitioners and the private respondents have to be treated differently as the educational qualification required for the post of Tutor/Chief Tutor and for,,,
the post held by the petitioners are different. Just because the petitioners and the private respondents are in the common final inter-se-seniority list,,,
under SCERT, published vide Notification dated 27.04.2015, and as they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor, re-",,,
designated to Deputy Director (VOSE), Deputy Director (IEDC) and Deputy Director (T.E), the same cannot imply that the petitioners have a right",,,
to be considered for the post of Chief Tutor, which is a post to be filled up as per the 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules. The petitioners and the private",,,
respondents can be considered to be in the same cadre only when they are promoted to the posts of Deputy Directors as per 1989 Rules. It must be,,,
understood that being in the same grade is not the same as being in the same cadre.,,,
In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation v. N.K. Vairamani & Another, reported in 2004 8 SCC 579, the Apex Court has held that Courts",,,
should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance,,,
is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context.,,,
These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To,,,
interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant",,,
to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be",,,
interpreted as statutes.,,,
In the case of Ambika Quary Works v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1987 1 SCC 213, the Apex Court has held that the ratio of any decision must",,,
be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It is stated that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what",,,
logically follows from it. In the case of Bhavanagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and Others, reported in 2003 2 SCC 111, the Apex Court",,,
has held that a little difference in facts and additional facts can make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The facts of this case,,,
are completely different from the facts in Union of India & Others v. Atul Shukla & Others (Supra). Accordingly, the decision of the Apex Court in",,,
Union of India & Others v. Atul Shukla & Others (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case.,,,
In the case of P.U Joshi & Others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Others, reported in 2003 2 SCC 632, the Apex Court has held as",,,
follows:,,,
“We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of",,,
posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and",,,
criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of",,,
course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the",,,
Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that,,,
of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by",,,
addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the",,,
administrative exigencies may need or necessitate.â€,,,
In the present case, there is no change in the 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules with regard to appointment to the post of Chief Tutor (re-designated as",,,
Deputy Director Language Promotion). As the feeder post of Chief Tutor/Deputy Director (Language Promotion) is only from Tutor, this Court does",,,
not find any arbitrariness in the said Rules, just because the petitioners cannot be considered for the said post. The petitioners cannot be said to have a",,,
legal or vested right to claim that the Rules governing the conditions for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion) should be,,,
changed so that the posts held by them should be made feeder posts for the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion). This is a matter of policy,,,
which will have to be decided by the State Government. Accordingly, we do not find the impugned 1987 Rules and the 1988 Rules to be illegal, ultra",,,
vires or unconstitutional.,,,
In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.",,,