!2;! 4,'~~ BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATTVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR. (M.P.) t^PC^^S^6^- M.L. Sinha S/o. Shri MatUal Sinha Aged about 42, Working as Headmaster in Govt. Middle School, Charra Kurd , Distt. Raipur, M.P. 1. 2. VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh, through : Secretary, School Education Department Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. Director, Public Education, Bhopal,, Bhopal, (M.P.) Joint Director, Public Education, Raipur Division, Raipur, (M.P.) Ku. Alka Singh, Lecturer in Govt. Higher, Sec. School, Hasda, Teh.: Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, (M.P.) .....APPLICANT .RESPONDENTS. APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATFVE TRIBUNALS ACT. 1995. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (St No.2708/2005 M.L. Sinha Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh) and others (now ORDER ^ POST ON ^ APRIL. 2010 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON»BLESHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (Sl No.2708/2005 M.L. Sinha Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh) and others (now Appearance: Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. I^NN.: ORDER (Passed on ^ .04.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved on account of his supersession and promotion of his junior- respondent No.4 on the post ofLecturer vide order dated 31.8.1988 (Annexure-I). 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Upper Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari vide order dated 29.9.1991 (Annexure A-II). According to the petitioner, he is possessed of M.Sc. degree with Anthropology with IInd Class and also obtained B.Ed. degree. Since his appointment as Upper Division Teacher, petitioner was teaching Biology Subject in Class 9th 10th & 11th in old pattern and after enforcement of new education system i.e. 10+2 pattern, petitioner taught Biology to the student of Class 11th & 12th. A certificate was also issued by the Principal on 3.11.1998 (Annexure- III) to the effect that the petitioner has been teaching -2- ^WH^S Biology Subject in Class 11 8s 12th since 1994 in the Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Kurud. In the Gradation list issued vide memo dated 17.1.1992 (Annexure -V) showing seniority position as on 31.3.1991, petitioner was placed at Sr. No.295, whereas respondent No.4 was placed at Sr. No.458. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he is senior to respondent No.4 as Upper Division Teacher, vide impugned order dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure -I), his junior has been promoted on the post of Lecturer, Biology. According to the petitioner, relevant rules governing promotion to the post of Lecturer, namely Madhya Pradesh Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and promotion Rules, 1982 (henceforth "the Rule of 1982") prescribed that for promotion to the post of Lecturer a candidate should be possessed of 2nd Class degree in P.G. in respective faculty with 5 years experience in teaching. According to the petitioner, he possesses the qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer. Though the petitioner was qualified, he was not promoted, therefore, a representation was made by him. The representation was dully fonvarded by the Principal vide his letter dated 22.5.1996 (Annexure A-6), in response to which he was informed vide memo dated 23.10.1996 (Annexure A-7) that petitioner representation is under consideration and the decision on the same will be communicated to him. The Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were also directed to be submitted to the Directorate, Public Education, whereupon Joint Director required Principal to furnish Confidential Report of the petitioner vide his letter dated 7.1.1997 (Annexure A-8). Though all these details were submitted, no order was passed. Again petitioner made representation on 29.7.1998 stating that he has been teaching since 1.10.1981 and one Asit Kumar Sur was earlier promoted to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology vide order ^w. -3- dated 12.1.1996. According to the petitioner Anthropology is a Branch of Life Science as itevident from Certificate dated 16.4.1996 of the University (Annexure X). However, without considering the case of the petitioner, his junior-respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Lecturer, Biology vide impugned order dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure X). According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 is not onlyjunior but only IInd Class in M.Sc. as well as in B.Ed. Case of the petitioner is that there is conimon line of promotion from all branches or discipline of Life Science as reHected from Certificate dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure X) issued by the University. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is possessed of long experience of teaching Biology Subject in Class 9th, 10th & 11th and after enforcement of 10 + 2 education pattern; petitioner has been teaching Biology Subject to students of Class- 11 & 12th from 1994 in Higher Secondary School. It is also argued that the subject of Anthropology belongs to the stream of Life Science which include not only Botany, Zoology but also Anthropology. His submission is that the subject of Anthropology should be treated as equivalerit to Biology and his non-promotion is illegal and arbitrary. In the past, Upper Division Teacher possessed of qualification of M.Sc. in Anthropology have been promoted as Lecturer which is clear from order dated 12.1.1996 (Annexure- XI) by which one Asit Kumar Sur, post graduate (Anthropology) has been promoted on the post of Lecturer in Anthropology, though there is no subject of Anthropology prescribed under the syllabus of course prescribed for Class 11th 85 12th. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw support to his submission by referring to yet another case of promotion of Savita Sao, a post ^. i 1 • 'r^ 1 -4- graduate in Bio-Science, who was promoted as Lecturer vide order dated 12.1.1990. 4. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that even though petitioner is senior to respondent No.4, as the petitioner was not a post graduate in any of the subjects of Biology and there was a need of Lecturer Biology, respondent No.4 being M.8c. in Biology Subject was promoted as Lecturer. According to learned counsel for the respondents, Biology includes Botany and Zoology. Petitioner is neither post graduate in Botany nor in Zoology. Referring to Syllabus (Annexure R-I), it has been argued that in Science group subjects, Anthropology is not there but the subject taught are Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Higher Mathematics, Agriculture Forestry and Zoology. As no subject of Anthropology is taught in Higher Secondary Schools, therefore there is no need of Lecturer in Anthropology. It is also replied by submitting that the criteria laid down by the University in equivalence of qualification could not be applied in the matter of equivalence of qualification with regard to appointment, promotion to the post of Lecturer in Schools under School Education Department. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 6. Terms and Conditions governing promotion to the post of Lecturer in Higher Secondary School in School Education Department are governed by M.P. Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rule, 1982. Conditions of eligibility for promotion have been prescribed in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1982. The relevant Schedule- IV referable to Rule 14 prescribes under Sr. No.15 that an Upper Division J -5- f- lat»NW Teacher with 5 years experience is eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer, Higher Secondaiy School. The remark column however, does not state anything with regard to qualiflcation. Qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer by way of direct recruitment is prescribed in Schedule-III referable to Rule 8 wherein under Sr. No. 3, the qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer, Higher Secondary School is post graduate degree in concerned subject (minimum IInd division) or equivalent qualification. 7. Though it has been the stand of the respondents that as the petitioner was M.Sc. in Anthropology which is not included in any of the Biology Subjects nor is one of the subject taught in Class-11th & 12th as per the prescribed syllabus, there is no explanation whatsoever from the respondents as to how one Asit Kumar Sur, M.Sc. in Anthropology was promoted as Lecturer vide order dated 12.1.1996 (Annexure -XI). It has also not been explained as to how another lady Smt. Savita Sao, a post graduate in Bioscience was promoted as Lecturer in Higher Secondary School. On these two aspects, respondents are silent. It has also to be noted that as Upper Division Teacher, petitioner was teaching subject of Biology in 9th, 10th 85 11th. This averment made in Para 6 (ii) of the petition has been admitted by the respondents in their return. It has also been averred that since 1994, petitioner has been teaching Biology subject in Class 11th 85 12th. This fact has also not been disputed. This is evident from Certificate (Annexure-III). 8. Whether subject Anthropology is a qualification equivalent to other Biology Subjects like Botany and Zoology, is a matter of consideration for experts of subjects and not for the Court. It is, however, clear that the respondents by their conduct in promoting Upper Division "0^^->».„.. -6- Teachers possessed of M.Sc. degree in Anthropology as Lecturer are duty bound to also consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Lecturer by considering the aspect of his qualification and taking into consideration the petitioner's long -standing experience of teaching Biology Subject not only in Class 9th , 10th & 11th prior to introduction of 10 + 2 pattern, but thereafter also since 1994. 9. Accordingly, the School Education Department of the State Government shall consider the case of the petitioner in the light of observations made by this Court hereinabove and if found fit for promotion, shall be granted benefit of notional promotion on the post of Lecturer with effect from the date his junior respondent No.4 was promoted with consequent benefits of seniority and notional f^ation of pay except actual benefit of pay. 10. Petition is accordingly allowed in part. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude ^ / Praveen