Case: THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANDEEP SINGH

Supplied)*** *** ***chart15. We find that the High Court has taken a simplistic view on the bare reading of Rule 9 (5) of 2012 Rules to hold that with the commencement of 2012 Rules, the C&V Teachers become part of TGT Cadre and as part of the TGT Cadre, they become entitled for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster from the day their juniors were promoted to such post.16. The appointment of the writ petitioners as C&V Teacher is prior to the commencement of 2012 Rules. The 1998 Rules contemplate direct recruitment to the post of Master and to various other disciplines, commonly called as C&V Teachers. In fact, the post of Master is a promotion post for C&V Teachers in terms of Rule 9 of the 1998 Rules. The qualification for the post of Art Master by way of direct recruitment and promotion is Graduate or Matric/10+2 with 5 years Degree/Diploma. However, for promotion the additional qualification is 3 years? experience on the post of JBT and C&V Teachers.17. The post of TGT is contemplated to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion from amongst primary teachers/C&V Teachers. Column 3 of the Appendix B of 2012 Rules prescribes the academic qualifications and experience for direct recruitment on contract basis whereas, Column 4 prescribes academic qualifications and experience for appointment other than by direct recruitment on contract basis. The qualifications for filling up the post of TGT by way of promotion are B.F .A/B.A and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education; or B.F.A/B.A with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.); or B.F.A/B.A with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.); in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard; or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year B.A. Ed. Etc. and 3 years? experience as Primary Teacher (PRT)/Classical & Vernacular (C&V) Teacher. Thus, the post of TGT is a promotion post for C&V Teachers as well.18. Therefore, the reading of the entire 2012 Rules shows that the Masters appointed under 1998 Rules alone were holding equivalent post to that of the members of the cadre of TGT. It is such category alone who are entitled to be promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmaster in terms of the qualifications prescribed in Appendix B particularly in view of Rule 2(h) and Rule 7 of the 2012 Rules. TGT means a Trained Graduate Teacher in the relevant subject appointed after notification of the 2012 Rules and include the Masters appointed before the notification of these Rules. Therefore, the Masters appointed in terms of 1998 Rules are only the Trained Graduate Teachers in terms of 2012 Rules. The post of Master under the 1998 Rules or the Post of TGT under the 2012 Rules is in fact promotion post for the C&V Teachers.19. The entire argument of the appellants is based upon the expression used that C&V Teachers governed by 1998 Rules shall be ?converted to TGT in relevant subject?. The question is whether such C&V Teachers stand upgraded to the post of TGT though, their promotion channel under 1998 Rules was to the post of Master which alone has been treated as TGT as defined in Rule 2(h) of the 2012 Rules and in view of express language of Rule 7 which mandates that the appointment shall be made to the post of TGT only in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in 2012 Rules.20. The reading of the Rules would show that C&V Teachers are treated to be TGT so as to avoid anomalous situation where the C&V Teachers after the commencement of 2012 Rules would not be governed by any set of Rules. Therefore, the expression that such C&V Teachers stand converted to TGT is only to facilitate their service conditions to be governed by the 2012 Rules rather than to upgrade the C&V Teachers as members of TGT Cadre. The feeder and the promotional cadre cannot be treated at par by virtue of the expression used in Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules that the C&V Teachers shall be converted to TGT. Such conversion is only for a limited purpose of 2012 Rules being extended to them and that such C&V Teachers do not become member of the ?cadre? eligible for promotion as Elementary School Headmaster. Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules does not use the word ?cadre?. Therefore, such teachers cannot be treated to be part of TGT cadre. Such interpretation is further supported by the fact that C&V Teacher is a dying cadre and no further recruitment is to be made in these categories.21. Such C&V Teachers, if eligible, can seek appointment by way of a direct recruitment or other than by direct recruitment in terms of the academic qualifications and experience contained in Appendix B of 2012 Rules but they cannot be treated en masse as members of TGT Cadre. The State may consider to provide opportunity to such teachers for appointment as TGT s.22. The TGT s are engaged to provide elementary education. The purpose of the Rules is better served by ensuring education to the students of primary schools in the State by Trained Graduate Teachers rather than C&V Teachers who were being engaged earlier. It is upgradation of qualification of teachers to be engaged for teaching the students of the primary schools for appointment as TGT s. Therefore, the interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against the interpretation leading to anomalous result, more so it is not warranted by the cumulative reading of the 2012 Rules.23. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the High Court that C&V Teachers become member of the TGT Cadre after the commencement of 2012 Rules in fact violates the cumulative reading of the 2012 Rules and defeats the cause of the primary education in the State guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. We find that the High Court has taken a simplistic view on the bare reading of Rule 9 (5) of 2012 Rules to hold that with the commencement of 2012 Rules, the C&V Teachers become part of TGT Cadre and as part of the TGT Cadre, they become entitled for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster from the day their juniors were promoted to such post.16. The appointment of the writ petitioners as C&V Teacher is prior to the commencement of 2012 Rules. The 1998 Rules contemplate direct recruitment to the post of Master and to various other disciplines, commonly called as C&V Teachers. In fact, the post of Master is a promotion post for C&V TTherefore, the reading of the entire 2012 Rules shows that the Masters appointed under 1998 Rules alone were holding equivalent post to that of the members of the cadre of TGT. It is such category alone who are entitled to be promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmaster in terms of the qualifications prescribed in Appendix B particularly in view of Rule 2(h) and Rule 7 of the 2012 Rules. TGT means a Trained Graduate Teacher in the relevant subject appointed after notification of the 2012 Rules and include the Masters appointed before the notification of these Rules. Therefore, the Masters appointed in terms of 1998 Rules are only the Trained Graduate Teachers.19. The entire argument of the appellants is based upon the expression used that C&V Teachers governed by 1998 Rules shall be ?converted to TGT in relevant subject?. The question is whether such C&V Teachers stand upgraded to the post of TGT though, their promotion channel under 1998 Rules was to the post of Master which alone has been treated as TGT as defined in Rule 2(h) of the 2012 Rules and in view of express language of Rule 7 which mandates that the appointment shall be made to the post of TGT only in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in 2012 Rules.20. The reading of the Rules would show that C&V Teachers are treated to be TGT so as to avoid anomalous situation where the C&V Teachers after the commencement of 2012 Rules would not be governed by any set of Rules. Therefore, the expression that such C&V Teachers stand converted to TGT is only to facilitate their service conditions to be governed by the 2012 Rules rather than to upgrade the C&V Teachers as members of TGT Cadre. The feeder and the promotional cadre cannot be treated at par by virtue of the expression used in Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules that the C&V Teachers shall be converted to TGT. Such conversion is only for a limited purpose of 2012 Rules being extended to them and that such C&V Teachers do not become member of the ?cadre? eligible for promotion as Elementary School Headmaster. Rule 9(5) of 2012 Rules does not use the word ?cadre?. Therefore, such teachers cannot be treated to be part of TGT cadre. Such interpretation is further supported by the fact that C&V Teacher is a dying cadre and no further recruitment is to be made in these categories.21. Such C&V Teachers, if eligible, can seek appointment by way of a direct recruitment or other than by direct recruitment in terms of the academic qualifications and experience contained in Appendix B of 2012 Rules but they cannot be treated en masse as members of TGT Cadre. The State may consider to provide opportunity to such teachers for appointment as TGT s.22. The TGT s are engaged to provide elementary education. The purpose of the Rules is better served by ensuring education to the students of primary schools in the State by Trained Graduate Teachers rather than C&V Teachers who were being engaged earlier. It is upgradation of qualification of teachers to be engaged for teaching the students of the primary schools for appointment as TGT s. Therefore, the interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against the interpretation leading to anomalous result, more so it is not warranted by the cumulative reading of the 2012 Rules.In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the High Court that C&V Teachers become member of the TGT Cadre after the commencement of 2012 Rules in fact violates the cumulative reading of the 2012 Rules and defeats the cause of the primary education in the State guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution.