Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gulab Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana & Anothers on 30 January, 2025

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi I. Mehta

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014502-DB




CWP-8151-2018
         2018 (O&M)

                                    Page 1 of 5

216
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                     CWP-8151-2018 (O&M)
                                                  Date of Decision: 30.01.2025
                                                                      .01.2025
GULAB SINGH AND ANOTHER
                                                                 . . . . Petitioner
                                        Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

                                                              . . . . Respondentss
                                 ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
         HON'BLE MRS.MR JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
                                 ****
Present: None for the petitioners.

         Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
                               ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. No one appears for the petitioners. On the last date of hearing, i.e.

01.04.2024, request was made for adjournment, whereafter this case

has not seen the light of the day. Earlier on 09.11.2023, no one

appeared for the petitioner, nor anyone had appeared on n 29.10.2022.

Continuous requests have been made from time to time for

adjournment of this case.

2. The petitioners are holding the post of Head Masters. They have filed

the present petition seeking to quash the notification dated 11.

11.04.2012 4.2012

whereby the qualifications qualifications laid down for promotion to the post of

Principal from Head Master have been modified, and condition to pass

M.A./M.Sc./M.Com /M.Sc./M.Com with 50% marks was introduced.

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014502-DB

CWP-8151-2018 2018 (O&M)

3. It also challenges the quota of post revised amongst Lecturers and

Head Masters for the purpose purpose of promotion to the post of Principal.

The grievance rievance has been raised that so far as the Lecturers are

concerned, the earlier requirement of having B.Ed as a pre pre-eligibility eligibility

criteria was relaxed. By the impugned notification, the quota for Head

Masterss has been reduced from 40% to 31%.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioners would be entitled for

consideration for promotion in terms of the earlier un un-amended amended Rules,

as the vacancy for which consideration was being made related to the

years prior to the year of amendment. The petition petitioners ers have also stated

that the new Rules could not have been made applicable upon them,

and they would continue to be governed by the Haryana State

Education (School and Inspection Cadre) (Group B) Service Rules,,

1988, and accordingly promotion should be gr granted to them.

5. The respondents in their reply have contended that the post of Principal,

is required to be filled from both the cadres namely Head Master as

well as Lecturers (School Education).

Education). S Since ince the existing Lecturers have

been teaching for long, the the criteria of possessing B.A. was not held to

be applicable to the present Lecturers. The ratio of promotion has been

changed from 60:40 to 35:35, and then from 35:35 to 80:20 between

Lecturers and Head Masters.

Masters. The same has been done in view of the

fact that hat the strength of PGT Cadre (Lecturer) is much higher than the

strength of Head Master cadre in the department. A policy decision has

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014502-DB

CWP-8151-2018 2018 (O&M)

been taken with the purpose to maintain balance between both the

cadres.

6. The posts which are to be filled, are not to bbee with reference to the date

when the vacancy has occurred, but on the time when the promotions

are made, and in this respect therefore, the contention of the petitioners

that the earlier Rules of 1998 will apply instead of the new provisions provisions,,

has to be rejected.

7. We have considered the record and perused the written statement filed

by the respondents, and find that the petitioners were working as Head

Masters and the only right available to them is for consideration for

promotion. No right of promotion is available to any employee in

service, and therefore the claim for higher percentage of promotional

post is found to be untenable. The 20% posts of Principals will have to

be filled from amongst the eligible Head Masters Masters.. If the vacancies are

of the earlier year, though though the promotion may be conducted today, it

has to be with reference to the record of the concerned year and the

Head Masters who are working since long, cannot be expected to

acquire new educational qualifications while in service. No such

opportunity is is given to an employee by the department, and therefore

change of educational qualification for promotion would not affect the

existing Head Masters, and would apply prospectively.

8. We find that similar relaxation has also been given to the existing

Lecturers. In view thereto, the contention of the petitioner Lecturers. petitioners to the said

extent is found to be legal and justified.

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014502-DB

CWP-8151-2018 2018 (O&M)

9. Thus, so far as quota of post revised by the department is concerned, it

being a purely policy decision based on factual aspects relating to the

inter nter se cadre strength of PGT (Lecturers) and the Head Masters, this

Court would be slow in interfering with the said policy decision.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Co. vs. Kaiser

552, held as under:

Aluminium Technical Service, Inc., 2012(9) SCC 552

"61.

61. Mr. Sorabjee has also rightly pointed out the observations made by Lord Diplock in the case of Duport Steels Ltd. (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, the House of Lords disapproved the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in discerning discerning the intention of the legislature, it is observed that :-

:

"...the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedi inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our Constitution it is Parliament's opinion on these matters that is paramount."

(emphasis supplied) In the same judgment, it is further observed ::- "But if this be the case it is for Parliament, not for the judiciary, to decide whether any changes should be made to the law as stated in the Act."