Ranvir Singh Negi vs U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3872 of 1990 wherein he sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.12.1989, issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad; a writ of mandamus staying the operation of the order dated 12.12.1989 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad; and to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Lecturer. After the writ petition was transferred from the Allahabad High Court to the Uttarakhand High Court, it was renumbered as WPSB No. 39 of 2001.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was, hitherto, working as an Assistant Teacher (L.T.) in the Janta School, Haldukhal, P.O. Biyasi, District Pauri Garhwal, which was a recognized education institution governed by the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 and the Rules made there under. The said school was later upgraded as an Intermediate College in the year 1988 and, as a result of such up-gradation, four posts, in the Lecturer Grade, were created by the Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh by his order dated 04.02.1989. It was left open to the Committee of Management to decide which post of Lecturer should be filled up for which subject. 40%, of these posts of Lecturers, was reserved for existing teachers by way of promotion. Of these four posts of Lecturers, two were earmarked for the promotion category; and the other two for the direct recruitment category. The petitioner was at Serial No.2 in the Seniority List of Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade. The Committee of Management decided to fill up four posts of Lecturers by appointing teachers for Hindi, English, Sanskrit and Civics subjects. The person, who was at Serial No.1, was promoted by the Committee of Management as Lecturer (Hindi). The petitioner, who was at Serial No.2 in the Seniority List, was qualified to be considered as Lecturer in Sanskrit, and the other two posts of Lecturer, in English and Civics, were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment.

The Committee of Management was substituted by an Authorised Controller (i.e. the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Pauri Garhwal) who, however, did not promote the petitioner and, instead, promoted Mr. Banwarilal Gaur (the fourth respondent herein) as a Lecturer in English. According to the petitioner, it is the Authorised Controller who was interested in the appointment of Mr. Banwarilal Gaur, and had deliberately not forwarded his name for being considered for appointment as a Lecturer.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the Authorised Controller on 25.03.1989 requesting that his name be forwarded, to be considered for promotion as a Lecturer, as he was at Serial No.2 in the Seniority List and, as per Rule 9(2), promotion to the post of Lecturer was to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. On 25.03.1989, the Authorised Controller passed an order, on the petitioner's representation, informing him that he was not entitled to be considered for promotion as there were several adverse entries in his service record, and he had not informed the Management, before appearing for the M.A. Examination which he had passed. By his reply letter dated 27.04.1989, the petitioner informed the Authorised Controller that no such adverse entry had ever been communicated to him; the alleged entries were deliberately introduced behind his back for no fault or shortcoming of his; and these entries were made only to malign him.

The petitioner, thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court filling Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20225 of 1989. In the counter affidavit filed in reply thereto the respondents stated that the petitioner's claim for promotion had already been sent to the Commission and, as a result, the Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 20.12.1989 recording that the petitioner's claim for promotion had been forwarded to the Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad, by its order dated 12.12.1989, that the fourth respondent had been selected and appointed as a Lecturer, and the petitioner's claim had been rejected. The said order passed by the Commission does not, however, record any reasons for declaring the petitioner unfit.

Questioning the order dated 12.12.1989, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by way of the present Writ Petition. While no counter affidavit has been filed thereto, by the Commission, the Committee of Management, in its counter affidavit, stated that the petitioner was rightly not considered for promotion since he had obtained his post graduation degree without obtaining permission from the competent authority, and had concealed these facts from the Committee of Management; in the rejoinder affidavit filed thereto, the petitioner had asserted that the post graduate degree in Sanskrit was obtained by him only after prior approval of the Committee of Management. He also enclosed thereto a true copy of the proceedings dated 29.09.1973 whereby permission was accorded to three individuals to prosecute their post graduate courses i.e. Mr. Sureshanand Ji Gaur, Mr. Vidhya Datt Uniyal and Mr. Ranvir Singh Negi (the petitioner).

If, as is claimed by the petitioner, he had obtained permission from the Committee of Management as early as on 29.09.1973 then he, having been placed at Serial No.2 in the Seniority List of Assistant Lecturers (LT Grade), would undoubtedly have been entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer before the fourth respondent. Likewise, an un-communicated adverse entry, if any, in the service record cannot form the basis for denying consideration, of the candidature of an employee, for promotion.

We would, ordinarily, have directed the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad to consider the petitioner's case for promotion as a Lecturer, if he was in a position to satisfy them that he had, in fact, obtained permission from the Committee of Management for prosecuting his post-graduate course in Sanskrit. The long passage of time and the pendency of this writ petition for nearly three decades, both on the file of the Allahabad High Court and thereafter before this Court, has rendered such a course of action impossible. The petitioner's claim for promotion as a Lecturer was negative by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad in the year 1989 resulting in his invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court soon thereafter in the year 1990. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Amendment Act, 1998 w.e.f 20.04.1998. Not only was the name of the Act changed from the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Commission) Act, 1982 to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, Section 3(1) in Chapter II of the Act provided for the establishment of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, and for the dissolution of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission, consequent on the establishment of the Board.

Yet another difficulty which we face in granting the petitioner relief, is that, consequent on the re-organization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the creation of the State of Uttarakhand from 09.11.2000, the petitioner, who has been working as an Assistant Teacher (L.T.) in an Intermediate College in Pauri Garhwal District, became an employee of a private aided institution in the State of Uttarakhand; and, unlike the State of Uttar Pradesh which has a Secondary Education Services Selection Board, the State of Uttarakhand does not.

The petitioner appears to have been later promoted as a Lecturer, and he retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, in June, 2007 as a Lecturer. The Junior College, which was hitherto under the supervision of the Committee of Management, was provincialised in January, 2008, around six months after the petitioner retired from service in June, 2007. The said Institution is now a Government Intermediate College. Because of the pendency of this writ petition for the past nearly three decades, the Selection Commission which existed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982, has since been dissolved; the Selection Board, constituted in its place, confines its recruitment only to teachers in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and there is no such Selection Board in the State of Uttarakhand to effect promotion of teachers. We are informed that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission undertakes the exercise of promoting Assistant Teacher (L.T.), to the post of Lecturers, in the State of Uttarakhand.

We may not be justified in issuing any direction to the Public Service Commission itself, since it is not arrayed as a respondent in this Writ Petition. We are also informed that the second respondent District Inspector of Schools, Pauri Garhwal is now re-designated as the Chief Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and as all the above referred complexities have arisen only because of the pendency of this Writ Petition for the past nearly 30 years, we direct the second respondent (Chief Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal) to collect, from the Janta Inter College, Pauri Garhwal, the service records of the petitioner, and forward them to the Secretary (Education), Government of Uttarakhand. The Secretary (Education) shall, on receipt of the records from the Chief Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal, request the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to undertake the exercise of considering the petitioner's claim for promotion as a Lecturer, from the date on which the fourth respondent was promoted as a Lecturer, after ascertaining whether the adverse entries were made in the service record after the petitioner was informed thereof, and whether he was given an opportunity of being heard in this regard; and after satisfying themselves that petitioner had obtained approval of the Committee of Management before prosecuting his Post-graduate degree in Sanskrit. Needless to state that, in case the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission recommends the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as a Lecturer, in the place of the fourth respondent, in 1989, he shall be extended the notional benefits which he was entitled to as a Lecturer, from 1989 till he was actually promoted as a Lecturer. His pensionary benefits shall be revised, and he shall be paid revised pension on the basis of the enhanced pay he would have been entitled to consequent on his being granted notional fitment from the year 1989. The petitioner shall only be entitled for notional fitment, and not for arrears of salary (on the application of the principle of no-work-no-pay), even if the Public Service Commission recommends his candidature for promotion as a Lecturer from 1989. We hope and trust that the entire exercise is completed early, since the petitioner's claim for promotion as a Lecturer relates to the year 1989, nearly three decades ago.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.