THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.29 OF 2003 O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (for short ‘TGT’) in Hindi on 11.9.1992 in the Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society and his services were regularized in the said cadre. He passed B.Ed. with English Methodology and Post Graduation in English in second division. His case is that the T.G.T. is the feeder category for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (for short ‘PGT’) and the qualifications are prescribed in the proceedings of the Secretary, APREI Society (Regd.) Hyderabad in RC.No.689/C3-1/96 dated 18.4.1996. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though he possessed requisite qualification for promoting to the post of PGT in English and made representation though proper channel dated 12.4.2002, the respondents are not considering his case and hence he filed the present writ petition. 2. The Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions society, Hyderabad filed counter and stated inter alia that the petitioner is not having experience in teaching English subject and he is having experience in teaching Hindi subject and hence as per the Service and Recruitment Rules of the Society, his case cannot be considered for cross-promotion to PGT in English and as he is having teaching experience in Hindi Subject, whenever promotion process is undertaken by the respondent – society, his case will be considered for promotion to the post of PGT in Hindi. It is further stated that the issue is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in W.P.No.993 of 2000 and 566 of 2001 dated 29.10.2001. With these averments the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 3. Before proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to look into Rule 5(a) of Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1972. The said provision and the amendment to the said provision, is extracted as under for ready reference: TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER TO POST GRADUATE TEACHER a) I or II class M.A./M.Sc. degree with not less than 50% of marks. b) I or II class B.Ed. degree. c) At least two years teaching experience as TGT in a Residential School of the Society. AMENDMENT a) For the Rule (a) the words ‘in the relevant subjects’ shall be added. b) For the Rule (b) the words ‘with relevant subjects as one of the methods of teaching’ shall be added. 4. From a reading of the above rules it is clear that for promotion to the post of PGT from that of TGT, one should possess I or II class M.A./M.Sc. degree with not less than 50 per cent marks in the relevant subjects and shall possess I or II class B.Ed. degree with relevant subjects as one of the methods of teaching and he shall have at least have two years teaching experience as TGT in a residential school of the society. 5. In the present case, the petitioner acquired M.A. in English with second division and also acquired B.Ed. with English Methodology and therefore, the petitioner has fulfilled first two clauses of Rule 5. Coming to the clause ( c ), it is clear one shall have at least two years teaching experience as T.G.T. in a residential school of the society. In this clause ( c), the word ‘relevant’ has not been used and it is only stated that two years teaching experience as TGT in a residential school of the society. The interpretation of clause ( c ) of Rule 5 has fallen for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in U.GIRIDHAR KISHORE v. A.P.R.E.I. Society[1] i.e., whether in the absence of any amendment to clause ( c ) of Rule 5 of the Rules made by the Society, the teaching experience as Trained Graduate teacher in residential school of the society in the ‘relevant subject’ was also necessary. The question was answered in the negative on the ground that words cannot be read into clause ( c ), which was interpreted all through since its inception and acted upon in a particular manner. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner is having two years teaching experience as TGT in a residential school of the society and fulfills clause ( c ) of Rule 5. 6. The case of the respondents in the counter is that the petitioner is not having two years teaching experience in English. But as per clause ( c), two years teaching in the ‘relevant subject’ is not the requirement and the same was also considered by the Division Bench of this court in the writ petition referred to above and answered in the negative. Therefore, the objection of the respondent in this regard is not tenable. 7. Further the Division Bench of this court in the decision cited supra held that those petitioners who did not satisfy the qualifications as specified in clause (b) were not entitled to be granted any relief. It was further held that the petitioners therein, who have studied the relevant subject i.e., the subject in which they possessed P.G. Degree, as one of the methods of teaching in B.Ed., degree, should be given promotion, subject to their suitability and fulfillment of other criteria. In the counter it is also stated that as per the orders of the Division Bench, the TGTs, who possessed P.G. degree in other subjects and having methods of teaching in B.Ed., were promoted as PGTs. However, in the counter it is stated that the respondent – society has not implemented the promotions from the category of TGTs to PGTs, since the Association submitted a represented to implement the Six Point Formula in A.P.R.E.I. Society. The A.P. Legislative House Committee instructed the Secretary that transfers and promotions can be effected, but zonal system may be followed as far as possible. The Society addressed a letter in Rc.No.19710/C3-1/1999-2002, dated 23.10.2002 to the Chairman, A.P. Legislative Committee, Hyderabad for clarification on the issue of promotions whether the society can go ahead with the existing rules taking State as Unit, pending adoption of zonal system. The clarification is awaited from the A.P. Legislative House Committee. 8. From the above discussion it is clear that the petitioner fulfills the conditions stipulated in Rule 5(a) of Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1972 and the subsequent Amendment, as he possessed P.G in English and also B.Ed. with English Methodology as one of the subjects of teaching. With regard to clause ( c ) as already noted, the Division Bench of this court interpreting the said clause held that teaching experience in the ‘relevant subject’, in which promotion is sought, is not necessary and held that the petitioners who have studied the relevant subject i.e., the subject in which they possessed P.G. Degree, as one of the methods of teaching in B.Ed., degree should be given promotion subject to their suitability and fulfillment of other criteria and following the said decision, it is stated in the counter affidavit that TGTs who possessed P.G. degree in other subject and having methods of teaching in B.Ed., were given promotions to the post of PGTs. In view of these circumstances, the objection raised by the respondent – society that the petitioner is not having teaching experience in English, cannot be sustained, since the said objection is not traceable to any conditions under Rule 5 of the Rules. 9. With regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.Nos.993 of 2000 and 566 of 2001 dated 29.10.2001, the facts are different from the facts of the present case and there, the petitioner was working as TGT in Bio-Sciences and thereafter obtained P.G. qualification in English and sought promotion to the post of PGT English. The facts disclose that the petitioner therein fulfilled the criteria laid down in clauses ( a ) and ( c), but has not fulfilled the criteria as contained in clause (b). Therefore, the Division Bench following the decision of the earlier Division Bench in 1 supra rejected the relief sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.993 of 2000 and 566 of 2001 dated 29.10.2001 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the facts of the present case are akin to the facts in the decision of the Division Bench referred to 1 supra and as the petitioner fulfills all the conditions in Rule 5, his case deserves to be considered. 10. With regard to other averments stated in the counter that whether Zonal System has to be followed or the Six Point Formula, is for the respondent – society to follow instructions of the appropriate authority under law and this Court cannot interfere with the same. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondent – Society shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of PGT in English as per Rules, if not already considered, subject to his suitability and fulfillment of other criteria, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 12. There shall be no order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------- 05—03—2010 [1] W.P.No.20533 of 1995 and batch dated 24.10.1997