* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) Nos. 758/1995
% Judgment delivered on: 27.04.2009
Smt. Raj Kumari Sachdev & Others ...... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate
versus
Delhi Cantonment Board ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.R. Wanavaty, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
*
1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek direction for the grant of scale of TGT w.e.f. 10.8.1989 from which date as per the petitioners they were discharging their duties on the said post.
2. Brief facts to decide the present case are as under:-
All the petitioners are employed as Assistant Teachers in the Middle School, Uri Enclave, Delhi Cantt. being run and WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 1 of 9 managed by the Delhi Cantonment Board/Respondent No.1. This school was earlier a Primary School and was upgraded as Middle School w.e.f. 10.8.1989 and since then all the petitioners have been performing the duties as TGT and teaching to the middle school students. As per the petitioners, the TGT post is a promotional post on the basis of cent percent quota from the post of Assistant Teachers based on seniority and this practice is being adopted and followed by the Cantonment Board in the country running various middle Schools such as Bareilly, Faizabad, Fatehgarh, Lansalowne, Meerut, Ranikhet, Varanasi and Saugor . As per the petitioners, the respondent No.1 in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice was trying to fill up the 16 regular posts of TGT by direct recruitment from open market. It is asserted by the petitioners that in the schools rule by the Delhi Administration and in the Delhi Municipal Corporation the post of TGT is to be filled on the basis of promotion to the extent of 72 per cent from the Assistant Teacher with five years service. It is further averred that although the petitioiners have been performing the duties of TGT but are being paid the salary of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners sent a legal notice dated 20.1.1995 on the WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 2 of 9 respondents but despite service of the notice the petitioners were denied the scale of TGT. Hence the petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are trained graduate teachers and they were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers but then the school being run by the respondent Uri Enclave was a primary teachers' school and not at the level of middle school. Counsel further submits that the said school was upgraded to the level of middle school from 10.8.1989 and since then present petitioners started teaching to the middle level classes. Counsel further submits that all these petitioners are trained graduate teachers and they are fully qualified to be appointed on the post of TGT as per the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 framed thereunder. Counsel further submits that the post of TGT under the Rules of the cantonment board is 100% promotional post on the basis of cent percent quota from the post of the Assistant Teachers on the basis of the seniority of the Assistant Teachers. Counsel further submits that the said practice is being adopted by the respondent in all their middle level schools being run at various places such as Bareilly, Faizabad, Fatehgarh, WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 3 of 9 Lansalowne, Meerut, Ranikhet, Varanasi, Saugor, etc. Counsel further submits that even under the schools run by the Delhi Government, the post of TGT is filled on the basis of promotion to the extent of 72% from the Assistant Teachers with 5 years experience and rest are filled through direct recruitment.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the stand taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit wherein they have admitted that in the year 1992 the school was upgraded to middle level and accordingly the present petitioners started teaching students of middle school. Respondent has also admitted that the petitioners were qualified to teach the students of middle classes. Counsel thus submits that under the said unequivocal admission on the part of the respondent at least the petitioners are entitled to the scale of TGT w.e.f. 1992 if not from the year 1989.
5. Refuting the said submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent submits that no doubt the school was upgraded to the middle level in the year 1992 but the petitioners were never appointed on the post of TGT with the relevant pay scale. Counsel further submits that if the petitioners were teaching the middle level school students then WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 4 of 9 that fact by itself will not entitle them to claim the scale of TGT level unless the post against which they were appointed was duly sanctioned or they were appointed on the said post after following the due process of law. Counsel further submits that the respondent also disputes this position that the post of TGT is a 100% promotion post as already direct recruitment appointment was made by the respondent on the said post in the year 2005. Counsel for the respondent also submits that sanction for promotion on the post of TGT was received by the respondent only on 1.9.1995 and based on that the petitioners were permitted on the said post w.e.f. 30.10.2005. Counsel thus states that the petitioners cannot claim entitlement on the post of TGT or the pay scales admissible to TGT either effective from 10.8.1989 or from the order dated 1992 when factually the sanction for the said posts was received by the respondent only on 30.10.2005.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. The present petitioners were initially employed on the post of Assistant Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.330. At the time of appointment of these petitioners, the said school was WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 5 of 9 only upto the primary level and since the said students studying in the primary level with the advancement of the classes of these schools being run under the control of the respondent No.1 were upgraded upto the middle level and the present petitioners thereafter started teaching the students upto the middle level besides teaching the primary school students as well. It is not in dispute that the recommendation was made by the Director of Education on 14.9.1992 to the said upgradation of that school upto the middle level. The said upgradation came on a request made by the respondent vide letter dated 8.6.1992. The school being run by the respondent cantonment Board are unaided schools. This fact is clearly borne out from the said letter dated 14.9.1992. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent they have taken a stand that the petitioners had started teaching middle classes when the primary schools being run by the respondent were given recognition by the Director of Education in the year 1992. The respondent has also not disputed that the present petitioners were duly qualified to teach the students of the middle classes level but since no sanction was obtained by them from the competent authority, therefore, they were not entitled to the scales payable before the sanction WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 6 of 9 was received by the respondent, therefore they were not admissible for the grant of scales payable to TGT employees. Although, the petitioners have claimed that they were teaching to the middle level classes from the year 1989 but they are ready to accept the period as stated by the respondent to be taken into consideration for granting scales to the petitioners from the year 14.9.1992 when DOE allowed upgradation of school from primary to middle level. Once the respondent has taken the stand that these petitioners were teaching to the middle level students from the year 1992 and these schools were also given recognition by the Director of Education for upgrading the schools from the primary level to the middle level, then, necessarily the respondent was to initiate steps to either grant promotion to the teachers working on the post of Assistant Teacher or to take steps for direct recruitment in accordance with their rules. Undoubtedly, no such steps were taken by the respondent with the result that these petitioners kept on discharging their duties to teach the students of the middle level as well. Respondent has not disclosed in the counter affidavit as to when the steps were taken by it to obtain necessary sanction for the appointment of regular teachers on the post of WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 7 of 9 TGT either based on promotion or through direct recruitment. Only reliance placed by the respondent is upon letter dated 1.9.2005 which shows that the sanction of the GOC-in-C Under Rule 47 of the Cantonment Account Code, 1924 was received for the appointment of 41 posts of Assistant Teachers in the scale of 4500-7000 to TGT in the pay scale of 5500-175-9000 after the upgradation of the primary school to the middle level. No other communication has been placed on record to show any earlier steps taken by the respondent to seek sanction for the appointment of TGT against the said 41 vacancies.
8. Also, it is well known that the difference of grades in a service are as per varying qualifications and accordingly different pay scales are fixed for different grades. The respondents have sidelined the basic feature of our Constitution as enshrined in the concept of socialism by refusing pay scale and post of TGT to the petitioners herein.
9. In view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to pay the entire arrears within a period of two months from the date of this order to the petitioners on the scale of TGT w.e.f. 14.9.1992. The respondents are also directed to consider the case of petitioners for promotion to the post of TGT in terms WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 8 of 9 of the recruitment rules of Delhi Cantonment Board within a period of six months from the date of this order subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria by the petitioners after giving due benefit of their past service on the post of TGT.
10. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed with above directions.
April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
pkv
WP (C) No.758/1995 Page 9 of 9