//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service Matter – Seniority – Promotion – mere having B.Ed. Degree can the junior as a senior in Trained Graduates cadre over power the senior candidate and can be designated as senior for promotion – Apex court set aside the order of High court and held that we find that in the case at hand there is a specific Rule, namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with seniority. The clear and unambiguous criteria for determining seniority is the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Schedule “B”. since the appellant was holding the requisite qualifications, i.e. D.Ed., for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule “B” to the Rules, her seniority was to be counted on the basis of continuous officiation. Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and respondent No.4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980. The appellant would naturally be senior to respondent No.4.Insofar as manning the post of Head of the School is concerned, Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the qualifications. It is not in dispute that as on the date of which the Head of the School was to be appointed, the appellant fulfilled all the requisite qualifications mentioned in the said Rule. Further, as already found, she was senior to respondent No.4 as well. Therefore, it is the appellant who was the rightful claimant to the post of Head of the School. Depriving her of this legitimate right and making the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Head Master of the School was, therefore, clearly erroneous, which resulted in infringement of the rights of the appellant to hold that post. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of the High Court is set aside and a direction is issued to appoint the appellant as Head of the School by replacing respondent No.4 therefrom. This direction shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7699 OF 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29696 of 2013) |VIMAN VAMAN AWALE |…..APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |GANGADHAR MAKHRIYA CHARITABLE TRUST & |…..RESPONDENT(S) | |ORS. | | = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41826

Service Matter – Seniority – Promotion – mere having B.Ed. Degree can the junior  as a senior in Trained Graduates cadre over power the senior candidate and can be designated as senior for promotion – Apex court set aside the order of High court and held that we find that in the case at  hand  there  is  a  specific  Rule, namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with  seniority.   

The  clear  and unambiguous  criteria  for   determining   seniority   is   the   continuous

officiation  counted  from   the   date   of   acquiring   the   educational qualification as prescribed under Schedule “B”.  since  the  appellant  was   holding   the   requisite qualifications, i.e.  D.Ed.,  for  appointment  to  the  post  of  Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule “B”  to  the  Rules, her seniority was to be counted on  the  basis  of  continuous  officiation. Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and  respondent No.4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980.   The  appellant would naturally be senior to respondent No.4.Insofar as manning the post of Head of the School is concerned,  Rule  3  of

the Rules provides for the qualifications.  It is not in dispute that as  on the date of which the Head of the School was to be appointed, the  appellant fulfilled all the requisite  qualifications  mentioned  in  the  said  Rule. Further, as already found, she  was  senior  to  respondent  No.4  as  well. Therefore, it is the appellant who was the rightful claimant to the post  of Head of the School.  Depriving her of this legitimate right and  making  the appointment of respondent No.4  as  the  Head  Master  of  the  School  was, therefore, clearly erroneous, which resulted in infringement of  the  rights of the appellant to hold that post. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.  Judgment of  the  High  Court  is  set aside and a direction is issued to appoint the  appellant  as  Head  of  the School by replacing respondent No.4  therefrom.   This  direction  shall  be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.=

Both the appellant as well as respondent No.4 are  working

as teachers in Seth Gangadhar Makhriya High School, Mahabaleshwar,  District

Satara in Maharashtra.

It is not in dispute that the appellant  had  joined

the said school as Assistant Teacher before respondent No.4 and  was  senior

to him in the post of  Assistant  Teacher.

However,  respondent  No.4  had

acquired B.Ed. degree prior to  the  appellant  and  on  that  basis  he  is

treated senior to  the  appellant  in  the  category  of  ‘Trained  Graduate

Teachers’.  

Whether this consequence follows as a result  of  the  rules  is

the matter of examination in the present case .=

The view taken by us also finds support from  the  judgment  of

this Court

in Union of India v.  B.  Jayaraman,  (1994)  Supp  (1)  SCC  95,

wherein considering a similar argument this Court held: (SCC Headnote)

“The note in column 11 is only for purposes of  giving  eligibility  to  the

erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade  II  for  purposes  of

being considered for promotion to the post of  Superintendent  Grade  I  and

not for the purpose of seniority at all.

                                                        (Emphasis supplied)”

That apart, we find that in the case at  hand  there  is  a  specific  Rule,

namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with  seniority.   

The  clear  and

unambiguous  criteria  for   determining   seniority   is   the   continuous

officiation  counted  from   the   date   of   acquiring   the   educational

qualification as prescribed under Schedule “B”. 

It is stated  at  the  cost

of  repetition  that  since  the  appellant  was   holding   the   requisite

qualifications, i.e.  D.Ed.,  for  appointment  to  the  post  of  Assistant

Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule “B”  to  the  Rules,

her seniority was to be counted on  the  basis  of  continuous  officiation.

Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and  respondent

No.4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980.   The  appellant

would naturally be senior to respondent No.4.

Insofar as manning the post of Head of the School is concerned,  Rule  3  of

the Rules provides for the qualifications.  

It is not in dispute that as  on

the date of which the Head of the School was to be appointed, the  appellant

fulfilled all the requisite  qualifications  mentioned  in  the  said  Rule.

Further, as already found, she  was  senior  to  respondent  No.4  as  well.

Therefore, it is the appellant who was the rightful claimant to the post  of

Head of the School.  Depriving her of this legitimate right and  making  the

appointment of respondent No.4  as  the  Head  Master  of  the  School  was,

therefore, clearly erroneous, which resulted in infringement of  the  rights

of the appellant to hold that post.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.  Judgment of  the  High  Court  is  set

aside and a direction is issued to appoint the  appellant  as  Head  of  the

School by replacing respondent No.4  therefrom.   This  direction  shall  be

carried out within a period of four weeks from today.

Since the respondents have not appeared, we are not  making

any order as to costs.

2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41826

J. CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,658,153 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,846 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com