is is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying). HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 8 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7069 of 2014 Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Singh And 7 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jyoti Sikka Honble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. In compliance of order dated 5.12.2014, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit categorically stating that no eligibility list has been prepared by the respondents for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior High School/Headmaster in Primary Schools and exercise for promotion is being undertaken on the basis of seniority list filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 and 3 and Ms. Jyoti Sikka for respondents no.2 and 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Assistant Teacher in different primary schools during the year 2009-10 and thereafter, on basis of option exercised by them, they were transferred to District Unnao, which is a different local area. The respondents are now undertaking the exercise for promotion, as provided under Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). For the said purpose, the respondents are required to prepare an eligibility list of candidates in order of seniority and place it before the Selection Committee. The eligibility for promotion is provided under Rule 8. The petitioners possess the requisite academic qualification and five years teaching experience, except petitioner no.8. However, according to the petitioners, the respondents are not considering the petitioners for promotion on the ground that they have been transferred to District Unnao in the year 2012-13. It is contended that though for purposes of seniority, the petitioners, as provided under Rule 22, are to be placed at the bottom of the list of teachers of the corresponding class pertaining to local area but the experience gained by them prior to their transfer, is to be taken into consideration for purposes of grant of promotion. Ms. Jyoti Sikka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 and 4 contended that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the respondents have refused to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion on such ground. She very fairly submits that teaching experience gained by the petitioners whether it be prior to their transfer to District Unnao or afterwards, has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of promotion. She states that the case of the petitioners will also be taken into consideration in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 18. She further points out that the counseling was over on 10.12.2014. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This court in the judgment dated 28.10.2014, while deciding Writ Petition No.3035 (S/S) of 2014 Priyanka Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others, has held that the services rendered by a teacher in any of the local area, is liable to be counted for determining the teaching experience for the purposes of eligibility for promotion. It has been held as under:- In view of the above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the services rendered by the petitioner as assistant teacher in any of the local areas, whether rural or urban, are liable to be counted for determining the teaching experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion. The next question which requires to be answered is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to. Under Rule 18 (2) an eligibility list of candidates in order of seniority has to be prepared by the appointing authority. It has to be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls, which shall consider the candidates for promotion on basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the urban cadre, large number of vacancies are in existence in the promotional grade. It has been admitted in the letter of the Block Education Officer, Urban Area, Sitapur dated 18.9.2014 addressed to District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur (Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit of opposite party no.3) that in rural areas the exercise for promotion could not be undertaken since year 2013, because no candidate having five years teaching experience in urban area is available. Evidently, the respondents have not prepared the eligibility list contemplated under Rule 18 (2) on wrong notion of law that service rendered by a candidate in urban area alone is to be counted towards teaching experience for determining the eligibility for promotion. However, in view of the finding recorded above, such stand of the respondents is not sustainable in law. The appointing authority is thus required to prepare an eligibility list of candidates in order of seniority by counting the teaching experience rendered by the candidates while serving in any of the local areas and has to place it before the Selection Committee for further action. It is not disputed that in case the teaching experience of the petitioner in rural area is counted alongwith that in the urban area, she possesses the requisite teaching experience of five years. However, this itself will not entitle the petitioner for promotion. Her case is to be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority list prepared as per Rule 22 (2). Accordingly, respondent no.3, the appointing authority is directed to prepare the eligibility list of candidates in order of seniority as contemplated under Rule 18 (2) by counting the services rendered by the candidates in any of the local areas and which shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls. Such exercise is required to be carried out within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no.3. The Selection Committee shall, thereafter, proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 18 (3) and (4). Consequential decision for promotion shall be taken accordingly. Thus, the teaching experience gained by a teacher is liable to be counted under Rule 18, while considering his case for promotion. However, this itself will not entitle a teacher to be promoted as the same is to be granted on the basis of seniority list as per Rule 22 (2). In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein (except petitioner no.8, who admittedly does not have five years teaching experience) are also entitled for their case being considered for promotion in accordance with law by the Selection Committee, provided they are, otherwise, found to be eligible. This is of course, in order of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, as provided under Rule 18. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.4 to take appropriate action with regard to the claim of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with Rule 18, by counting their services rendered since date of their initial appointment, for purposes of teaching experience. In case the petitioners are not found entitled to be promoted, they shall be duly intimated. Writ petition stands disposed of subject to aforesaid observations/ directions. (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 11.12.2014 SL
Posted on: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:59:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015