HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14149 of 2000 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in English and Social Studies with effect from the date on which the vacancy had arisen with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits, including arrears of salary, seniority etc., by holding the action of the respondents in not promoting her under 50% quota as per Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan (Appointment, Promotion, Seniority etc.,) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), which had been adopted by the respondents, and denying atleast one promotion, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner questions the notification issued by the third respondent dated 05.05.2000 seeking to fill up the post of TGT in English and Social Studies through direct recruitment, without considering her case for promotion, though she was working as Primary Trained Teacher (PTT) in English and Social Studies since 1993. The petitioner states that the respondent-University, which had been running the school, had adopted the Rules. Sri J.Sudheer, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to the report of the Sub-Committee dated 07.05.1992 whereby it was resolved that the Rules applicable to the school teachers in Kendriya Vidyalayas be adopted for their school also including scales of pay, allowances, benefits and promotion to senior selection scales. S r i N.V.Sumanth, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University, on the other hand, would draw attention of this Court to the resolution of the respondent-University dated 30.04.1993 whereby it was resolved that the norms followed by Kendriya Vidyalayas regarding fixation of staff strength, scales of pay, allowances, benefits, promotion to senior selection scales etc. be adopted by their school also, and be made applicable to corresponding categories of employees of the respondent-school by suitably upgrading them where necessary; and to another resolution dated 23.10.2000, wherein the Committee resolved that it was not possible to follow the norms of Kendriya Vidyalayas in this regard since few vacancies would occur and subject-wise promotions would not be in confirmity with the general principles of promotion. The entire controversy revolves around the question as to the scope and extent of the resolution adopted by the respondent- University. All that the resolution records is that the rules applicable to teachers of Kendriya Vidyalayas, with regards promotion to Senior Selection Scales, be made applicable to the teachers in their school also. Promotion to a Senior Scale/Selection Scales of Pay is, ordinarily, to extend financial benefit to those who are stagnating in the very same post for years together. Such of those employees who have not been able to secure promotion to a higher post are extended the benefit of higher scales of pay on their completing the stipulated period of service. The resolution, afore-extracted, merely extends the benefit of such scales of pay to teachers in the school run by the respondent-University. The resolution does not extend, to the school, the rules applicable to Kendriya Vidyalayas for promotion from one grade to another. S r i N.V.Sumanth, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University, would submit that the petitioner has been given the benefit of such scales of pay, and in the absence of the rules applicable to Kendriya Vidyalayas regarding promotion having been adopted by the respondent-University, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that she should be promoted and the respondent-University should not resort to direct recruitment. In the absence of any rules or resolution of the respondent- University in this regard, while the petitioner may not be entitled to the relief sought for, the fact remains that the petitioner has been stagnating in the very same post of PTT for years together. As held by the Supreme Court, in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt[1]and Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar[2], there should be a channel of promotion to employees to avoid stagnation in the very same post for years together. In the light of the judicial pronouncement aforementioned, the respondent-University would be well advised to consider providing avenues for promotion to teachers and other staff of the school, who are stagnating in the very same post for years together, as that would not only deplete their morale but would also act as a disincentive from putting in their wholehearted efforts. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:23.07.2010 usd [1] (1989) 4 SCC 635 [2] 1988(Supp) SCC 519