C.W.P. No.15496 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.15496 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2011 Balwinder Singh PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajaib Singh, Additional A.G. Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner be promoted to the cadre of Master with effect from 2.1.1989. A prayer has also been made that the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer with effect from 31.12.1992. The facts of the case are not disputed. The petitioner is working as C&V Teacher, having been appointed with the respondents on 11.2.1981 on ad hoc basis which was followed by regularisation of his services with effect from 5.12.1985. The petitioner acquired the qualification of B.A.B.Ed. while in service in October, 1989. In 1988, an amendment was made in the rules which is reflected from Annexure P-1, on the basis of which the petitioner bases his claim for C.W.P. No.15496 of 1994 -2- promotion. Annexure P-1 is an extract of the notification dated 7.12.1988 according to which the posts of Mathematics Masters would be filed up with 75% coming from direct stream and 25% from prmotees out of which there was sub- categorization prescribing 15% from the trained graduates among the J.B.T.Teachers and 10% from the trained graduates from C&V Teachers. The necessary extract from Annexure P-1 is reproduced here below :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) Mathematics Graduate with Mathematics as one 75% 25% Masters/or of the elective subject with B.T. or (i) 15 % from trained B.Ed. graduates amongst JBTs and OR (ii) 10% from trained B.A. with Physics and Mathematics graduates amongst A courses with S.S.T.,C.B.Ed. or C&V Teachers. Senior Basic Trained. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be noticed that the entire notification Annexure P-1 has not been attached and only an extract which the petitioner thinks relevant, was placed on record. It is within 10% from trained graduates among the C&V Teachers, that the petitioner pleads, his case falls. On 18.5.1990, the respondents intended to fill up the posts of Masters from the promotees quota. But no promotion was made subsequent thereto and then again, the entire exercise was repeated on 23.10.1990, and the name of the petitioner was sent vide list submitted on 21.12.1990. Promotions were made in the year 1992 regarding all the subjects except C.W.P. No.15496 of 1994 -3- Mathematics. It may be noticed that the petitioner belongs to Mathematics Master category and his grievance now is that the respondents could not have promoted the incumbents from all other subjects except Mathematics, as he being the seniormost amongst C&V Teachers, was entitled to be promoted over and above the claim of the persons who have been promoted as such. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner to contend that no person junior to the petitioner was ever promoted. Their stand is specific to this effect that only the C&V Teachers who possess the requisite qualification and who had been regularised before 1982 for S.C.Category(Men) in 1977 and for General Category (Men), have been promoted, that too, in the month of October, 1995. The services of the petitioner were regularised as Arts & Craft Teacher on 1.4.1985 and thus could not be considered for promotion for the aforesaid reasons. However, subsequently, the petitioner has been promoted from 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence at his command, contends that the instructions Annexure P-1 prescribing 10% quota to the C&V Teachers would also include the sub-categorization subject-wise and to buttress his case, he has referred to Annexure P-12, the judgment rendered by this Court in C.W.P. No.3082 of 1996 titled Rajesh Kumar etc. v. State of Punjab etc. decided on 14.5.1996, wherein this Court had observed as follows :- “In view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, we dispose of these petitions by directing what while making recruitments to the posts of masters in future, the respondents shall strictly adhere to the promotion quota of 15% and consider the eligible candidates subject-wise according to the criteria laid down under the rules. In respect of the posts which are available as on date, this exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of six months from C.W.P. No.15496 of 1994 -4- today.” He, thus contends that the instructions Annexure P-1 clearly visualise that the promotions had to be made by taking into consideration various subjects and the fact that no one was promoted from the Mathematics stream, thus resulted in violation of these instructions. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the plea raised by the petitioner is without any merit. There is no sub-categorization provided in the notification. The only stipulation is that for making promotion to the Masters, 10% have to be from amongst the stream of C&V Teachers when notification is followed in view of the stand which has been taken by the respondents who have stated that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted. It thus, transpires that the grievance of the petitioner is totally misplaced. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that it has to be subject-wise, then there could have been a possible situation where a person having particular subject to his credit being junior, would also be entitled to the promotion at a particular point considering that there was sub-categorization subject-wise. Such an interpretation is not manifested from the notification or any material on record. The petitioner has not denied the averments made in the written statement by filing a counter-affidavit to say that some junior person was promoted over and above him. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is without any merit and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) November 30, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO