Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:­

"i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to include the name of the applicant in the panel prepared by the respondent Department for promotion to the post of T.G.T. (Arts) from the post of TET pass J.B.T. and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of T.G.T. (Arts) from the post of J.B.T. against the quota meant for St. candidate, in the interest of justice".

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the act of the respondents of purportedly not promoting him to the post of Junior Basic Teacher (J.B.T.) against Scheduled Tribe Quota when promotions of other eligible Junior Basic Teachers were done in the year 2013 despite availability of vacancies. To demonstrate the factum of availability of the vacancies, the petitioner has appended with the petition as Annexure P­6, the information obtained under Right to Information Act from the office of Deputy Directory Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, in terms whereof at the relevant time, against total 8 vacancies available of Junior Basic Teachers, 8 were to be filled up from amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates and only 5 were filled up against 108 available vacancies. Another contention which has been raised by the petitioner is that in terms of this information provided under Right to Information Act, all the incumbents who stood promoted had passed their Teachers' Eligibility Test in the year 2013, whereas the petitioner had passed the said test in the year 2012, meaning thereby that he had a right to be considered before the incumbents who stood promoted against the post of Junior Basic Teacher. The stand of the State is that the date of passing of Teachers' Eligibility Test is not material so as to consider the eligibility of the candidates on the date of effecting promotions because the promotion has to be made in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and when other persons senior to the petitioner were found eligible for promotion against the post of Junior Basic Teacher who might have passed Teachers' Eligibility Test after the petitioner, said incumbents could not have been ignored and this is exactly what was done by the State. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that in the year 2013, only 5 vacancies were filled up and thereafter also vacancies were filled up as is evident from the instructions which stood imparted to this Court also, which stand incorporated in its order dated 28.09.2020, in terms whereof remaining vacancies were subsequently filled up by promoting Scheduled Tribe candidates and petitioner in terms of his seniority also stood promoted to the post in issue on 26.10.2016. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the act of the State of not considering the petitioner for promotion before those candidates who had passed their Teachers' Eligibility Test in the year 2013 is arbitrary and the petitioner had a right to be promoted before the said incumbents.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

In my considered view, there is a fallacy in the contention of the petitioner that simply because he had passed his Teachers' Eligibility Test in the year 2012 i.e. before the candidates who were promoted in the year 2013 against the post of Teachers' Eligibility Test, therefore, he had a right to be considered for promotion over and above those incumbents who had passed Teachers' Eligibility Test thereafter.

This, I say for the reason that it is settled law that ordinarily when candidates are considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee, their eligibility is seen as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee meets. It is not in dispute that the candidates who stood promoted as Teachers' Eligibility Test in the year 2013 were senior to the petitioner as Junior Basic Teacher. As on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee met for effecting promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.) Arts, all the candidates were possessing the requisite qualification. That being the case, but natural when persons senior to the petitioner fulfilling eligibility criteria were available for being promoted to the post of Teachers' Eligibility Test, then there is no infirmity in the act of the respondents of promoting said incumbents. This Court reiterates that as the eligibility of a candidate has to be seen as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee meets then until and unless the Recruitment and Promotion Rules specifically provide that a candidate who has passed Teachers' Eligibility Test first in time, shall have a prior right of consideration, then in absence thereof persons like the petitioner who might have passed Teachers' Eligibility Test before their seniors cannot have a superior claim over their seniors, who otherwise fulfilled the eligibility criteria as on the date of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee.

In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dismissed.