IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. : 169 of 2006 Reserved on : 1.4.2008 Date of decision : 10.4.2008. State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Tripta Parmar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. Per Rajiv Sharma, J. The present petition is directed against the order of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. O.A.(M) No. 71 of 2000 on 9th December, 2004. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent was appointed as Language Teacher on 30th June, 1973. She improved her academic qualification and passed B.A in 1978, M.A. in 1990 and M.Phil in 1992. She approached the learned H.P.Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.(M) No. 71 of 2000 primarily contending therein that the rules known 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 as Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre), 1975 were defective since no provision has been made for promotion to the post of Lecturer from the post of C & V, though possessing requisite academic qualification for the post of Lecturer. It was also contended before the learned Tribunal that the quota provided for promotion to the post of TGT from the post of C & V teacher was inadequate. The State had contended before the Tribunal in its reply that it is the prerogative of the employer to frame the recruitment and promotion rules regulating the conditions of service of its employees. The learned Tribunal allowed the original application on 9th December, 2004 directing the petitioner- State to carry out necessary amendments in the rules by including C&V category for promotion to the post of Lecturer. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 9th December, 2004 is against the law and is liable to be struck down. He also contended that the Tribunal could not direct the State to carry out the amendments in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Mr. P.P.Chauhan has supported the order dated 9th December, 2004. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht has taken us through the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre), 1975. What emerges from the combined reading of these rules is that the post of Lecturer is to be 3 filled up by way of 50% promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The posts of Trained Graduate Teacher/Home Science Mistresses/Commercial Teachers/Agriculture Masters possessing the minimum educational qualification are placed in feeder category for promotion to the post of Lecturer. The post of C & V is clearly not mentioned in the feeder category. In fact the post of C & V is in feeder category for promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the ratio of 25%. We are of the considered opinion that it is for the employer to frame the recruitment and promotion rules for governing the condition of a particular cadre. The Courts/Tribunal can only adjudicate on whether the same have been framed in accordance with law or they do not violate the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In fact the framing of rules is in the realm of policy matter. The Court will not substitute its own wisdom for the wisdom of legislation/subordinate legislation. It is only in those exceptional cases where there is manifest violation of the constitutional and statutory provisions, the Court/Tribunal may quash the recruitment and promotion rules. In the present case, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the amendment in the recruitment and promotion rules by including the category of C & V teachers for promotion to the post of Lecturer. The post of C & V is at the lowest rung. The qualification for the post of C & V is entirely different. The post of C & V is in feeder cadre as noted above for promotion to the post of TGT. It is not that the C & V teachers have been left without any promotional avenues. 4 They are entitled to be promoted to the post of TGT in the ratio of 25%. The post of Lecturer is highest in the hierarchy of teachers in the schools. The recruitment and promotion rules provides different feeder categories for promotion to the post of Lecturer excluding the category of C & V. The Tribunal had come to wrong conclusion that the post of C &V and TGT are to be treated at par. The post in feeder cadre and promotional post could not be treated at par by the Tribunal. True it is that the respondent had acquired the qualification of M.A, M.Phil while serving as C & V teacher but merely on that basis the Tribunal could not direct the amendment in the recruitment and promotion rules for including the category of C & V for promotion to the post of Lecturer. The teachers belonging to C & V category have either to be promoted as TGT in the prescribed ratio or they could directly apply in 50% quota to the post of Lecturer. The case law cited and discussed by the learned Tribunal is not relevant at all. The judgements relied upon by the Tribunal are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in these judgement have laid down that there ought to be atleast one promotional avenue for an employee to avoid stagnation in the organisation. In the present case there is no stagnation since the category of C & V has avenue for further promotion to the post of TGT after improving their qualification. Every employee has a right for consideration to promotion but the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, he and she has to be considered in accordance with the existing recruitment and promotion 5 rules. It is for the State to decide that who will be suitable for the post and what should be channel of promotion for such post. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in latest Judgement 2008 (2) Scale 626 T.N.Electricity Board and another vs. T.N.Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam have held as under : “Therefore, this a matter of policy decision taken by the Board that henceforth the persons holding N.T.C./N.A.C. appointed as Helpers will have the channel of promotion to the technical post and not to the administrative post. It is true that prior to 1986 the persons who are appointed as Helpers were also appointed as Junior Assistants and Technicians in the office. After the decision taken by the Board Helpers have been appointed who only possess the N.T.C/N.A.C. certificate. The Board has now channelised the promotions of these persons in the category of technical posts and not in the administrative posts. This is a policy decision taken by the Board and it has been incorporated in service regulation. Therefore, the candidates were recruited on the post of Helper possessing this qualification, their channel of promotion is only to technical post and there cannot be any doubt about it. This was a categorical policy decision taken by the Board and therefore, the channel of promotion of these persons now will be only to the technical post and not to the administrative post. Therefore, this provision which has been made in the service condition cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary or violative under Article 19(1)(g) in any manner. This is a policy decision of the Board and it is the Board who has to decide that who will be suitable for the post and what should be the channel of promotion for such post. It is not for the incumbent serving as a Helper to insist that the Board should amend the Regulation which suits him. It is the prerogative of the Board to decide that what shall be the channel of promotion for technical and for non technical persons. In this case the Board has decided on a rational basis that the channel of promotion of technical persons will be on technical side and not on the administrative side. “ 6 Consequently, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observations made here-in-above the writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 9th December 2004 is quashed and set-aside and the original application bearing No. OA (M) No. 71 of 2000 preferred by the respondent shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta), J. April 10, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), J. ™ 7 Judgement for consideration in CWP No. 169 of 2006 State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Tripta Parmar …Respondent Judgement for consideration, please. ( Rajiv Sharma) I agree/do not agree. (Deepak Gupta) List for pronouncement of judgement on ___________ ( Deepak Gupta) Court Secretary: