Himachal Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 3727 of 2008 on 26 September 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP (T) No. 3727 of 2008. [OA (D) No. 363 of 1996] Date of Decision: 29.12.2010.
Shri Dalip Singh
….Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others .…Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General for No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 8 ex parte.
Respondents No.4 to 7 stand duly served for today. Neither they nor their authorized agent has put in appearance, hence proceeded against ex parte.
Surinder Singh, J.(Oral):
The petitioner was a Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teacher. He passed the ‘Junior Basic Training Certificate’ from the Punjab Education Board in the month of March, 1965 (Annexure A-1). On 1.10.1965, he was appointed as teacher on ad hoc basis. His services were regularized on and w.e.f. 14.10.1966. The petitioner had joined his duties in Government High School, Kakkar (Hamirpur) under the Education 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Department before reorganization of the States. At that time, the seniority list was being issued and prepared by the Education Department of the Punjab Government. They had already issued two seniority lists, one pertaining to untrained teachers and another pertaining to trained JBT Teachers. 2. After reorganization of the States, the services of the petitioner were allotted to the respondent-State and it issued the seniority list of ‘Trained JBT Teachers’ in the year 1994, wherein the petitioner was shown against Sl. No.1013-A in seniority as on 30.6.1979. It is alleged that the seniority list aforesaid was not circulated amongst all incumbents. It is stated that respondent No.4, Shri Kashmiri Lal was Junior to the petitioner and was placed at Sl. No.1014 whereas respondent No.5, Shri Chaman Lal, at Sl. No.1019 in the seniority list of the trained JBT Teachers. 3. The respondent-Education Department had framed the recruitment and promotion Rules for the post of ‘Head Teacher’ in the year 1987, a copy whereof is Annexure A-3. As per said R&P Rules, the post of ‘Head Teacher’ is non-selection post, it is to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the JBT Teachers working in the Districts, who have rendered at least tenyears of service as JBT Teacher under the respondents No.1 to 3. Though the petitioner completed ten years of service, but he was not promoted as ‘Head Teacher’. As per the respondents, the promotion to the post of ‘Head Teacher’ is done according to the availability of post and on the basis of seniority. Admittedly, private respondents, aforesaid, who were junior to the petitioner in the list issued in the year 1994, were promoted as ‘Head Teacher’ in December, 1995 but the respondents took up the stand that the seniority was wrongly assigned to the petitioner from the date of his ad hoc appointment, however, they did not deny his seniority position as per the seniority list of 1994. But later on for none of his fault, he was shown junior to the private respondents vide Annexure A-4,dated 29.6.1996, without affording an opportunity to him to make any representation or show cause against the proposed decision and he was also treated as untrained teacher whereas he was Junior Basic Trained Teacher and the respondents have even now failed to justify such a change.
4. The principles of natural justice are required to be followed, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Judgment of Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy.CIT & others, 2007 (2) SCC 181, which ensure the civil or evil consequences, denial thereof is ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Therefore, in view of the above stated position, the corrigendum issued on 26.9.1996 -(Annexure A4)is unsustainable. Accordingly it is quashed and set-aside, the consequences shall follow. If the petitioner is otherwise found fit, respondents 1 to 3 shall consider his case for promotion from the date of promotion of the private respondents, who were junior to him, within time bound manner i.e. within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
December 29, 2010 (PS)
(Surinder Singh), J