Delhi High Court

Smt. Veena Lamba & Ors. vs Chairman, Ndmc & Ors on 11 May, 2012

Author: A.K.Sikri

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                LPA 516-20 OF 2006
%                                      Judgments Reserved on: 19.4.2012
                                      Judgment Delivered on: 11.05.2012


SMT. VEENA LAMBA & ORS.                                  . . . APPELLANTS
                 Through :                      Mr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma,
                                                Advocate

                                     VERSUS

CHAIRMAN, NDMC & ORS                                    ... RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. B.B.Gupta, Advocate for R.2

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE:

1. Seven persons had filed W.P.(C) 1853/2003 claiming promotion to

the post of TGT in Navyug School where they have been working. There

were another similar petitions filed by some more such Teachers for the

same relief which are registered as W.P.(C) 621-26/2006. All these petitions

were taken up together and decided by the learned Single Judge vide

judgment dated 9.1.2006. The learned Single Judge vide this judgment

dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioners had no right to claim the

relief prayed for by them. Present appeal is preferred by five out of seven

of those persons who filed W.P.(C) 1853/2003 challenging the aforesaid

order of the learned Single Judge.

2. Before we advert to the basis on which these primary teachers lay

their claim for promotion to the post of TGT and the reasons given by the

learned Single Judge denying this claim, we would like to take note of the

basic facts. These appellants were appointed as Primary Teachers by the

Navyug School on different dates in 1980. Some of them before this

appointment were working as pre-primary teacher. The School at that time

was catering to students from the kindergarten to 5th standard. At the time of

its establishment, 8 pre-primary teachers and 40 primary teachers were

appointed for teaching in Navyug Schools under NDMC. The prescribed

qualification for the post of pre-primary teachers was graduation with

Nursery Teachers Training Diploma. The qualification for primary teachers

was a trained graduate with good command over spoken and written English

and Hindi, with B.Ed.

3. In the Academic Session of 1991-1992, the School took the decision

to discontinue with KG/pre-primary classes. As a result all the pre-primary

teachers including some of these appellants became surplus. Incidentally the

pay scale of primary teachers and pre primary teachers were the same from

the very beginning.

4. The post of TGT in Navyug School is governed by the Recruitment

Rules. As per the Recruitment Rules, the post of TGT is to be filled from

amongst those who possess Master degree in the concerned subject with

B.Ed and five years regular service in the cadre of primary teachers. The

cadre of TGT was to be exclusively filled by direct recruitment. However,

these rules were changed in the year 1988 on the persistent demand of staff

to provide promotional avenues. With this amendment, 25% of the vacancies

were to be filled by direct recruitment and 75% from amongst eligible

departmental candidates. On the basis of the aforesaid change in the

Recruitment Rules, a DPC was held and office order dated 9.8.99 was

issued promoting 14 primary teachers who were in the pay scale of ` 5500-

175-9000 to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in the pay scale of `

6500-200-10500.

5. It appears that many primary teachers were not fulfilling the

qualification as per the Recruitment Rules and therefore, Teachers

Association made a representation for relaxing the minimum eligibility

criteria as many teachers could not be promoted inspite of long years of

service. A meeting of the governing body of the school was held which

considered the aforesaid representation and it was agreed to grant one time

relaxation to the graduate primary teachers for being promoted to the post of

TGT on the following conditions;-

„1. All Post Graduate Primacy Teachers will rank senior to the promoted Graduate primary Teachers.

2. Fresh seniority will be drawn by amalgamating the 14 teachers promote in the 1 st DPC held on 30.7.1999 and 12 teachers being proposed to be promoted further in IInd DPC.

3. The Graduate Primary Teachers will not claim further promotion to the post of PGTs without acquiring the Post Graduate Qualification."

6. On the basis of aforesaid decision relaxing the qualification, DPC

meeting was held on 22.5.2000, it considered the promotion of 12 Graduate

Primacy Teachers to the post of TGTs in different subjects by Departmental

promotion as under:-

                1. Mrs. S.P. Mehra        Social Study
                2. Mrs. Amita Malhotra    English
                3. Mrs. Madhu Khanna      Physical Education
                4. „Mrs. Meenu Dua        Home Science
                5. Mrs. Sudha Bhatnagar   Music
                6. Mrs. Geeta Kumar       Hindi
                7. Mrs. Renu Rai          Art
                8. Mrs. Kusum Bhaatnagar  Art
                9. Mrs. Sushobhna Gupta   Sanskrit
                10.Mrs. Malti Mathur      Music
                11.Mrs. Madhuri Chabbra   Science B
                12.Mrs. R Kaur Kalra Mathematics

Nine of the aforesaid Twelve teachers were having better qualification and

were promoted under the relaxed standard giving them one time relaxation

After this promotion of the aforesaid 12 teachers, the appellants made

representation claiming similar benefits of relaxing of rules to them. Their

submission was that denial of this benefit of relaxing the rules for them on

the one hand and promoting juniors on the other was not justified and

discriminatory being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

When their representations were not acceded to, these appellants filed WP

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the NDMC, sponsoring body of the

school, it was contended that the staffing pattern in 1990-91 maintained a

clear distinction between pre-primary teachers and primary teachers. On

account of unavailability of kindergarten work, pre-primary teachers were

continued out of humanitarian considerations and granted pay benefits as

applicable to primary teachers. The position of the recruitment rules for the

cadre of TGT was explained and the manner in which these were amended

in the year 1998. The NDMC also explained the circumstances under which

one time relaxation of educational qualification was given. Justification was

given by submitting that at that stage the school had to consider academic

needs and ensure that the post of TGT was filled in respect of the

concerned subject matter since that too was filled by primary teachers

having qualifications in the concerned subject matter. On this basis, it was

argued that the allegation of the appellants that seniority was ignored would

not be relevant in these proceedings.

8. This contention of the NDMC is accepted by the learned Single as can

be seen from para 16 and 17 of the impugned order:-

"16. If one considers the fact that the pre-primary teachers (whose services became surplus as it were after 1991-92), were required to be Graduates with Nursery Teachers Training Diploma whereas primary Teachers were to be Trained Graduates with good command over Hindi/English and also holders of B.Ed. were to be kept in mind, their continuation itself in the post of Primacy Teachers was out of sympathy. It is no where disputed that in order to be promoted as TGT, the concerned Primary Teacher must be a Post Graduate in the relevant subject and also holder of B.Ed.

17.The Resolution whereby the qualifications were relaxed shows that the need of the institution was balanced alongwith the aspirations of the employees. Thus, out of the 48 existing employees obviously all could not have been promoted. The second circumstance is that prior to 1998 there was no promotional quota in the post of TGT. That quota was introduced only in that year. The schools explanation that it had to not only consider the seniority but also the availability of primary teachers in the relevant subjects, in my opinion cannot be termed unreasonable."

9. The contention of discrimination was brushed aside and repelled

holding as under:-

"I am of the opinion that unlike in the case of discrimination or arbitrariness in the grant of promotion where the complainant would be qualified, the considerations which would weight with the authority while granting or refusing to grant exemption or relaxation of certain standards necessarily had to be based upon objective factor. While one of the important reasons would, of course, be the need to satisfy the aspirations of an employee who would be, otherwise, ineligible, the employer as in the present case an educational institution, has to also keep in perspective and balance other factors such the overall needs of the institution. In this regard, the respondents have submitted that one of the guiding criteria awhile issuing and promoting other employee was the need of the concerned subject, since TGTs are trained in one or the other subject. This is also borne out of the concerned eligibility rule. Thus, for instance if the post of TGT relates to science, the concerned person to be promoted, whether he possess masters Degree or not but is granted exemption, would necessarily have to be a Graduate in Science with B.ed. qualifications.Any other interpretation would undermine the objective of imparting meaningful education. I am, therefore, of the view that the respondents did not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner while considering the cases of other teachers, and ignoring the claims of the petitioners, for granting promotion to the post of TGTs."

10. We are in agreement with the aforesaid reasoning given by the

learned Single Judge. No doubt, in the first instance, it is to be borne in

mind that as per the recruitment Rules, the appellants herein were not

eligible for promotion to the post of TGT. However, the main reason for

relaxation was to fill up the TGT posts by specific steps at the relevant

time and for this reason post wise relaxation was given. This would not

amount to arbitrary action on the part of the respondent.

11. It is also to be borne in mind that the appellant no.1 and 3 have since

taken voluntary retirement, appellants no. 2 and 4 have been promoted as

TGTs after acquiring necessary educational qualification and appellant no.5

is officiating as Head Mistress.

12. In view of all the aforesaid circumstances, we find no reason to