Delhi High Court
Mithilesh Kumari Mangla vs Lt. Govener And Ors. on 7 October, 1991
Equivalent citations: 45 (1991) DLT 695
Author: M Narain
Bench: M Narain, P Nag
JUDGMENT
Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) We had issued notice to show cause in this matter. Cause has been shown.
(2) Rule D.B.
(3) According to the reply to the show cause notice, the point is very short. We proceed to dispose of the matter.
(4) The short question which is involved in this case, is whether the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 25 in the common seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers (Language) in respondent No. 5 school, is entitled to be considered and appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher.
(5) The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the petitioner is a Trained Graduate Teacher, senior to respondent No. 6 in the common seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers, respondent No. 6 being at Sr. No. 26 in the aforesaid seniority list, it is respondent No. 6 who has been considered for appointment, and appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) without considering the petitioner, who was senior to her.
(6) It is the case of the petitioner that she is not only M.A. in Sanskrit, but also M.A. in Hindi.It is admitted case of the parties before us that the petitioner has been teaching Sanskrit as well as teaching Hindi.
(7) Mr. CL. Narsimhan appearing for respondent No. 5, has taken us to the applicable rules for the promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher made by the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration. According to the rules, in the event of promotion, the essential requirement is that a person must be a "Trained Graduate Teacher in the scale of Rs. 250-550 possessing post graduate diploma of 2 years duration in science from Delhi University with 5 years regular service in grade Or Trained Graduate Teachers Language in the scale of Rs. 250-550 possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits with 5 years regular service in the grade". It is the latter part of this rule, which is applicable to cases of Language Teachers. It Is not disputed that the petitioner is in the scale of Rs. 250-550, and has been In regular service for five years in the grade. A perusal of the said rules shows that the said recruitment rules do not mention "feeder cadre" for the purposes of promotion as Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit).
(8) In addition to being in a particular grade, qualifications of direct recruits have to be fulfillled by the petitioner. These qualifications are mentioned as (1) Master's Degree (or Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit/Hindi), in the subject concerned from the recognised university; (2) Degrees/Diploma in training/Education; and (3) desirable-three years experience of teaching in a College/Higher Secondary School/High School in the subject concerned. It is also not disputed that the petitioner meets all these qualifications also.
(9) Mr. C.L. Narsimhan relies upon a note which has been appended to the said recruitment rules. It is clear from the perusal of column 11 of the said rules and "asterisk" that has been placed in the first part of the rule relating to promotion that the note is relatable only to "science" teachers. Even if the note to the recruitment applies to the latter part of column Ii, the petitioner being a Post Graduate Degree holder in Hindi and Sanskrit, even she meets the qualifications mentioned in the said note itself.
(10) We observe that the note appears to be controlled by an "asterisk" in the first part of column 11. There is no "asterik" in the second part of column 11, and, therefore, note ought not be applied to language teachers. However, the terms of the note seek to Include Hindi, Sanskrit and Punjabi Teachers.
(11) It is admitted by the respondent No. 5 school that it has not maintained a separate seniority list with reference to the Language Teachers of Hindi, Sanskrit and Punjabi.
(12) In this view of the matter, the seniority list of language teachers being common, there is no reason why the petitioner should not have been appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher, as she meets all the requirement of the rules.
(13) The petitioner is not only holder of a Post Graduate Degree In Sanskrit, she also holds a Post Graduate Degree in Hindi. She is thus fit to be considered for appointment as a Post Graduate Teacher in Sanskrit, and ought to be appointed as such.
(14) In these circumstances, the writ petition must succeed, and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the appointment of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit), keeping in view her position in the original joint seniority list of language teachers. It is necessary that the original inter se position of the petitioner as senior to respondent No. 6 as her junior is maintained.
(15) It is stated by Mr. C.L. Narsimhan that there is a post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) still available in the school.
(16) Accordingly we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Teacher.
(17) No order as to costs.
