^-•.-^^—-r'- Y<^U3r^^- - ws-i ^;ftsr '^TQTciq ^•^•'°TTi?sr 9W?rt^ sfteTo?, ^ft-Q - TT9gT j ^•^' P ST^ -^•T.>^2^99 <1 3}T^?$ :- ^.^" ^TTT^ %OT$T 3ITTE{ui ^' rqiiIeiT^ ^tT^^ ^m^tq ^'mdT irB-^T^ TsiiTeiq ^R'air ^ToiTT, Ti]{dT g^f j q-5F»j TqgRft - TTqN^T^, cTS* ^T^tat-STTT TuiQT ^f^^: 3RT^^Wl :- l- ir»^«gira^ •c^r^r ^m^ ^N T^t f^fr f^-qTJT, g^T31 ^^i sitqTci ?fa9« 2- TiieiT T^tf 3iTtRT^T, TsidT T^T ^TCT^iq §3^ ^S?}elei ¥<S TuIeIT ^^•^* 3- ^d ^xrr^ ^T^iT^g ^yc? ^^Td^ , eiN T^°l T^T ^HTTT ^f^*9-» 4- <?<T ^xjT?.$ efN TSWI "^W, T^dT i ^^•^S m^ m ^d^ eiT^-T 19 %-9 ^ 7Tu;q ^^TRI^ sTfc^TOi 3}T£^q?r 1985 _^L_— ^ HC-22 W^T^T f^rli<=t) <3T{^T 5h^icb Ttft^i --^^ ^-sr ^FTI^R, ^ftw^. f^Kni^y STI^T '^TSR _!^.:.?..^.:.1.(VJ.:?..&.S'^ ^I^C^I 9b*11<=h ^ 200 fsrc^r' 3^T ^<TT^T( ^rft^ SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mloh^n Shrivastava, JL 08-03-2010 Shri Sanjeev Verma, counse| Shri Amnd Dubey, Panel La^ With the consent of teamed heard finally. In the order dated 26-03- mentioned that onty those Assist^nt who have been appointed on or 20-10-1976 (Scheduled Caste) arjid petitioner was granted promotion b^ Vide order dated 31-08-1999 (Annto on the ground that the petitioner's has to be reckoned from 01-07-19$4, grant of promotion. This order w^s 06-09-1999 (Annexure A-7) statin^ petitioner shali be taken after oon^i' order dated 12-10-1999 (Annexu^ rejected the representation holdin^ promotion as his seniority was to fc|e regular L e.01-07-1984 and not frc^n 01-07-1982. irti Initial date of appointment ir|i 01-07-1982 shows that the petit|i untrained teaoher Order of ap^ointment completion oftraining, the petition^r chl^(<rt4irl iTR^f^ f^t <r^<^l< '^sri^RvSTT^T for the petitioner. ^yer for the State. counset for the parties, the petition is 1-1998 (Annexure A-4), it has been Teachers are eligible for promotion l^efore 24-03-1965 (General category), 16-08-1982 (Scheduled Tribe). The ^ the aforesaid order dated 26-03-1998. fexure A-6), his promotion was cancetled ^eniority as a regular Assistant Teacher H, and therefore, he was not eligible for )s later on withdrawn vide order dated that final decision in the case of the fcideration of the relevant reoords. Vide [•e A-8), the District Education Officer that the petitioner was not eligible for |e reckoned from the date he was made his initial date of appointment dated case of the petitioner vide 'order dated oner was appointed on fixed pay as stated that after successfut would be appointed in the regular pay 1-:^ .^^ IXI-HC-22 'STT^T'^I ^Jch ^V^ '^TW^t^ A. ^oET •^n'q^R, "^ftW^. ^'ni'My 3'n^r 'tRr^ ^.;.i..ls..ll^..3.^.S?/^r-^ ^W^[ $b^icb '^n, 200 "iq^sr' ^TT^T'^cTT^R ^Tf^T __< scale of Rs. 169-300 on the post of| shows that the petitioner was held that he was regularized in service ^ granted with effect from the said daj As is clear from the order benefit of promotion in the Schedu) those Assistant Teachers who we^ However, neither the petitioner nor| the complete scheme of promotion extend benefit only to the confirtlned regularly appointed irrespective frorfi ctii^t<n^ri ^i^criT'? Fsl<il <F3i^i< '^^Tf^W 3TT^T Assistant Teacher. The order impugned not eligible for promotion on the ground ^e.f. 01-07-1984 and seniority was atso :e. ^tated 26-03-1998 (Annexure A-4), the ^d Tribe category was availabte only to \e appointed on or before 16-08-1982. |the respondents have pfaced on record &s also whether the scheme intended to Assistant Teachers or who were the date oftheir confirmation. In this view ofthe matter, in| served in issuing direction to resp<j petitioner as bebw:- (A) tf the policy aims at grant| only with reference to thj wilt determine as to whetl fell within the period pres| (B) If the respondents have my opinion, interest of justice woutd be 'ndent No.2 to consider the case of the |ng consideration of benefit of promotion ^ date of confirmation, the respondents |ier date of confirmation ofthe petitioner ^ribed for consideration. ^xtended the benefit of promotion to all (C) Assistant Teaohers irresibective oftheir date of confirmation but from the date of initial re^ular appointment, the petitioner shalt be entitled to the said benefil If any junior to the petijtioner appointed after 01-07-1982 has been granted benefit of entitled for the same. promotion, the petitioner shall also be L i-:ff^ -?rf^Fji -HC-22 3TT^T^I f^rli<=b 3T(^T $^^ich ^rftcT Tumane "s^ ^WM^, ^nl^^Ko. T®«ni^iy STlif^T 'q^? _^.:.?...£.L.r^J..<?.$?L&r ^FR^T ^)Wch "(^^r' Respondent No.2 shall take three months from the date of rec^ emphasize, if the petitioner is stii| approach this Court for redressal of The petition is therefore final| <=!bi<4i<n<fli TW^ ^ f^st <p3i^i< '^^rf^FT3?TT^T becision in the matter within a period of [ipt of a copy of this order. Needless to aggrieved, he would be at liberty to [his grievance. ^ disposed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude 1 'Tr^ -S-fe-4