Case: State Of Punjab &amp; Ors Vs. Labhu Ram &amp; Ors

The State of Punjab has come up by special leave against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court o[ Punjab &Haryana allowing the Writ petition of the respondents who, it is admitted by the State, are teachers of the Junior Vernacular grade working, on the dates on which they filed the Writ petition, as "promotees" in the senior vernacular grade temporarily but had not been confirmed there. It appears that the only difference between the junior vernacular cadre and the senior vernacular cadre is that those who teach lower classes were placed in the "junior" cadre and those who teach higher classes were in the "senior vernacular cadre". But, for some reason, working in senior vernacular cadre was considered a promotion. After consideration of the whole position, the two grades were integrated by the Government from 1st October. 1957, with retrospective effect, under the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Service Rules, 1961. This meant that the Government recognised that both the cadres should be really considered as one and that there were no acceptable grounds for a differentiation. Nevertheless, it appears that the names of the petitioners were dropped from the junior vernacular cadre as they had been working for more than the probationary period in the senior vernacular cadre. It is urged that it must be deemed that they were confirmed in the senior vernacular cadre automatically. However, they had to be "probationers" in the senior cadre for such a result to enure. We fail to see how they become "probationers"the prospects of those who were not considered "promoted" to the senior vernacular cadre and were junior to the petitioners respondents in that cadre, improved as they were offered opportunities of being taken in a "selection grade". But, no such opportunities were offered to the petitioners on the ground that they had been removed from the junior vernacular cadre. The names of the petitioners respondents had been automatically dropped from the cadre in which they held their liens having been appointed there initially permanently.The High Court of Punjab &Haryana held that the petitioners respondents are entitled to the benefit of their substantive posts, which were still in the junior vernacular cadre, as they were never confirmed in the senior vernacular cadre whatever may be the sentimental satisfaction of being considered as persons "promoted" to and working in the "senior vernacular cadre". Subsequent events showed that those who are junior to the petitioners, and, for that reason, did not get the opportunity of serving in the "senior" cadre, had better opportunities offered to them without any reasonable ground of discrimination between the two cadres except that the petitioners were seniors and could consider themselves "promoted" because they had been performing the duties of teachers of the "senior" cadre. The petitioners, after discovering that those who were junior to them and had, therefore, not been given the opportunity of serving in the senior vernacular cadre, had a better opportunity of moving into the select ion grade, which had not been offered to them, applied for this very opportunity as they still continued in their substantive posts which were in the junior vernacular cadre. They took up the correct position that they had merely been officiating in the senior vernacular cadre but their right places were in the junior vernacular cadre. The mere fact that they worked in the senior cadre for longer periods than probationers would could not give them the status of either more probationers or persons Confirmed in the senior vernacular cadre. They could not, for that reason alone, be deprived of the benefits of their substantive appointments in the junior vernacular cadre. Hence, their Writ Petitions were allowed and they were afforded all the benefits which would have accrued to them as members of the junior vernacular cadre to which they did not really cease to belong. Moreover, as already pointed out, the Government had itself considered the position and had integrated the two cadres into one with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1957.

Court's reasoning:
Learned Counsel for the State was unable to substantiate the submission that the petitioners respondents were merely probationers the senior vernacular cadre and not really persons whose substantive posts were in the junior vernacular cadre, appointed to perform the duties of persons put in another cadre. Their duties in the senior cadre involved teaching somewhat higher classes. This additional experience could not reasonably be looked up as a disqualification for the selection grade. The High Court had, therefore, given the petitioner-respondents the benefits of the cadre on which their names should have been retained. Moreover, this is not a question which can arise again as the two different cadres have been merged with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1957. It meant that they were entitled to be considered for the selection grade, and, if they satisfy the requirements for selection to get the benefits of it.