Delhi High Court
R.S. Misra vs Uoi & Ors Through The Commissioner ... on 23 July, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.07.2012
+ W.P.(C) 7864/2007
R.S. MISRA ... Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Mr S. Rajappa
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2006 passed in
O.A. No.2536/2005.
2. The petitioner who appears in person was a Post Graduate Teacher
(PGT) (Chemistry) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and he has
approached the Tribunal by virtue of the said original application seeking
quashing of the order dated 14.03.2005 whereby he has been denied the
selection scale w.e.f. 02.07.2000.
3. The facts are that the petitioner had joined Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan as TGT (Science) on 26.07.1972. He was appointed as a Post
Graduate Teacher on 02.07.1976 and on 11.02.1988 his services were
terminated under Article 81(b) of the Education Code. The petitioner had
challenged the order before the High Court which set aside the termination
order and directed the petitioner to be reinstated in service. Consequently,
he was reinstated on 30.10.2000 with all consequential benefits. The
petitioner was granted senior scale on 02.07.1988. However, his claim for
granting him selection scale on completion of 12 years from 02.07.1988 had
been rejected. In other words, the petitioner claimed that he should be
granted the selection scale in the year 2000 after he completed 12 years in
the senior scale. The petitioner contended that the respondents had not taken
into consideration the relevant instructions dated 03.11.1987 and 06.02.1989
and that they had wrongly applied instruction dated 12.08.1987 in his case.
According to the petitioner, he was entitled to selection scale automatically
on completion of 12 years of service in the senior scale.
4. These contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were rejected by
the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal made a
categorical reference to the Government Order dated 12.08.1987 which
indicated the parameters for grant of senior scale and grant of selection scale.
The relevant portion of the said Government order dated 12.08.1987 reads as
under:-
"The revised pay scales will be admissible subject to the
following conditions:-
i) While senior scale will be granted after 12 years to
Primary School Teachers, Trained Graduate
Teachers/Headmasters of Primary Schools and Post
Graduate Teachers/Headmasters of Middle Schools, the
selection scale will be granted after 12 years service in
the senior scale of the respective cadre. For the Vice
Principles/Headmasters of Secondary Schools, there will
be only senior scale after 12 years and no selection scale.
ii) The number of posts in the Selection Scale for Primary
School Teacher, Trained Graduate Teacher/Headmasters
of Primary School, Post Graduate Teacher/Headmasters
of Middle School will be restricted to 20% of the number
of posts in the senior scale of the respective cadre.
iii) The senior scale and selection scale will be given after
screening regarding their satisfactory performance by an
appropriate DPC."
(underlining added)
5. A plain reading of the above Government order dated 12.08.1987
clearly indicates that selection scale is to be granted after 12 years service in
the senior scale of the respective cadre. Secondly, there was also a
restriction on the number of persons who could get the selection scale and
that was limited to 20% in the senior scale of the respective cadre. Thirdly,
and more importantly, the senior scale and selection scale were to be given
"after screening regarding their satisfactory performance by an appropriate
DPC."
6. A DPC meeting was held on 10.03.2005 to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of selection scale. The relevant portion from the minutes
of the said meeting are as under:-
"4. Selection scale is granted after 12 years of service
in the Sr Scale. Since Sh. Misra has been granted Sr
Scale w.e.f. 02.07.1988, he is eligible for consideration
for grant of Sel. Scale after 02.07.2000 on completion of
12 years service in the Sr Scale. For considering the case
of Sh Misra for grant of Selection Scale w.e.f.
02.07.2000 Sh. Misra's Service record upto 1988 is to be
considered as his services were terminated w.e.f.
11.02.1988 and he was reinstated in service on
30.10.2000.
5. As per the instructions issued by the Govt. of India
vide letter No.F-5-180/86-UT-I dated 12.08.1987 the
Selection Scale will be granted after 12 years service in
the Sr Scale of the respective cadre. Selection scale will
be restricted to 20% of the no. of posts in the Sr Scale of
the respective cadre. The Selection Scale will be given
after screening regarding their satisfactory performance
by an appropriate DPC.
6. Every teacher would be required to participate in an
In-service training programme of at least three weeks
duration before, he/she crosses an E.B. or is promoted to
Sr Scale or Selection Scale i.e. once in every six years,
provided that where arrangements for such training
cannot be made, the appointing authority may exempt a
category of teachers for a specific period of time.
7. The DPC perused the service record of Sh. R.S. Misra
upto the year 1988 and did not recommend his case for
grant of Selection Scale as PGT."
(underlining added)
7. It would be pertinent to mention that the DPC had perused the service
record of the petitioner upto the year 1988 and thought it fit not to
recommend his case for grant of selection scale for the post of PGT.
8. The petitioner in person sought to urge before us that the consideration
of the DPC was mala fide. However, we do not find any allegation of any
specific or particular mala fides against the DPC or against any particular
member of the DPC. The petitioner stated that one Mr Ranvir Singh had
acted under bias and with mala fides insofar as his case of consideration for
grant of selection scale was concerned. However, we find that in the O.A.
there is not even a whisper of mala fides alleged against the said Mr Ranvir
Singh. It is a well-known principle that mala fides have to be pleaded with
all particulars and that the persons against whom the mala fides are alleged
have to be made parties to the proceedings so that they can answer the same.
In the present case, neither of the two requirements have been fulfilled.
Therefore, there is no question of us examining any question of mala fides
only on the basis of oral submissions of the petitioner in the course of
arguments.
9. The petitioner also drew our attention to a document dated 07.01.2005
which is a letter written from the Ministry of Human Resource Development
to the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan. In the said letter, it
is indicated that the decision of the Government for removal of the ceiling
restriction of 20% for grant of selection scale to the teachers were conveyed
to Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan vide a Ministry's letter dated 09.04.2003.
According to the petitioner, there was, therefore, no restriction with regard to
20% of the number of posts in the senior scale for the grant of selection
scale. However, we feel that this letter is of no use to the petitioner
inasmuch as the petitioner's case has not been rejected on the basis of this
20% restriction. The petitioner's case has been rejected because he was not
found satisfactory.
10. In view of the foregoing, we feel that the Tribunal's decision cannot
be faulted. After 12 years of service by the petitioner in the senior scale, his
case was considered for the selection scale by the DPC, which had not found
his services to be satisfactory and, therefore, did not recommend his case for
selection scale. The Court cannot be asked to substitute itself in place of the
DPC and take a view contrary to the DPC. There is no merit in the case put
forth by the petitioner and, therefore, we uphold the decision of the Tribunal.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JULY 23, 2012
dn
