Uttarakhand High Court
Seema Rani Bishnoi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 243 of 2020
28TH MAY, 2021
BETWEEN:
Seema Rani Bishnoi ........Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...........Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Anil Anthwal,
Advocate.
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned
Deputy Advocate General
for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The petitioner has challenged the legality of
the order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Additional
Director, School Education (Secondary), Garhwal
Region, Pauri, District-Pauri Garhwal, whereby the
learned Additional Director has rejected the proposal
sent by the Chief Education Officer, Roshnabad, District
Haridwar for promoting the petitioner as a Downgrade
Principal of S.S.D.P.C. Girls Inter College, Roorkee,
District-Haridwar.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the
petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher L.T.
(Stitching Teacher), on ad hoc basis, on 01.08.1984 in
Swami Dayal Bhatnagar Girls Higher Secondary School,
Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.
Subsequently, on 18.11.1996, she was transferred
from the said School to S.S.D.P.C. Girls Inter College,
Roorkee, District Haridwar. Since she had already
completed ten years of service, she was granted the
benefit of the Selection Grade in 1996. Thereafter, on
01.01.2006, she was granted the benefit of the
Promotion Grade. On 21.03.2013, she was promoted
to the post of Lecturer (Civics).
3. Moreover, on 31.03.2016, the Principal of the
said Inter College retired. Since the petitioner was the
senior most Lecturer of the College, she was appointed
as Principal-in-charge.
2
4. Subsequently, the said Inter College
recommended for the promotion of the petitioner as a
Downgrade Principal. But despite the fact that the
petitioner fulfills all the eligibility requirements, by the
impugned order, the proposal of the College was
rejected by the Additional Director. Hence, the present
petition before this Court.
5. Mr. Anil Anthwal, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, has raised the following contentions before
this Court:-
Firstly, in the Kumaun Region, some persons who
were working on the post of lecturer have been granted
the benefit of being promoted to the post of Downgrade
Principal. However, the said benefit is not being
extended to the petitioner. Therefore, a hostile
discrimination is being meted out to the petitioner.
Secondly, the petitioner does fulfill all the
eligibility requirements. However, despite her fulfilling
the eligibility requirements, she has been denied her
promotion to the post of Principal (Downgrade).
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the writ
petition should be allowed, and the impugned order
dated 07.08.2020 should be set aside. Moreover, a
3
mandamus should be issued to the respondents
directing them to consider the petitioner's case for
promotion on the post of Principal (Downgrade).
6. On the other hand, Mr. K.N. Joshi, the
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand, submits that firstly, there are certain
requirements of the law, which cannot be ignored by
the respondents. Secondly, according to the eligibility
prescribed in Appendix-A of Chapter-2 of the
Uttarakhand School Education Council Regulation,
2009, it is not just that a person should be the senior
most lecturer of the educational institution, but more so
that the person must have completed ten years on the
post of lecturer, and must have been granted the
Selection Pay Scale. However, in the present case, the
petitioner has not completed ten years as a lecturer as
she was promoted on the said post on 21.03.2013.
Moreover, she has not been granted the Selection Pay
Scale on the post of lecturer. Therefore, she does not
fulfill part of the requirement prescribed by the law.
Hence, the impugned order is legally justified. Thus, no
mandamus should be issued. Lastly, even if an
4
illegality has been committed by appointing some one
as a Principal (Downgrade) against the law, there is no
estoppel against the statute. Moreover, there is no
concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Deputy
Advocate General has vehemently opposed the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the impugned order, and considered the record
submitted by the petitioner.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as
an Assistant Teacher, on ad hoc basis, on 01.08.1984.
Her services were regularized as an Assistant Teacher
on 06.08.1994. Subsequently, she was promoted to the
post of lecturer on 21.03.2013. Therefore, obviously,
she would complete ten years on the said post on
20.03.2023. Hence, presently she has not completed
ten years on the post of lecturer. Since she has not
completed ten years on the post of lecturer, naturally,
she has not been granted the benefit of the Selection
Pay Scale.
5
9. A bare perusal of Appendix-A of Chapter-2 of
the Uttarakhand School Education Council Regulation,
2009 would clearly indicate that:-
Firstly, the eligibility requirements of the provision
that the person should be the senior most lecturer.
Secondly, that the person should have completed
ten years on the post of lecturership.
Lastly, the person should have been granted the
benefit of the Selection Scale.
10. As mentioned above, the petitioner has
neither completed her tenure of ten years on the post
of lecturer, nor has been granted the Selection Scale.
Therefore, she does not fulfill the eligibility
requirements. Thus, the impugned order is legally valid
and justified.
10. Needless to say, even if the senior most
lecturers belonging to the Garhwal area may have been
promoted to the post of Downgrade Principal in
violation of the law, there is no estoppel against the
statute. Therefore, the contention being raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly
unacceptable.
6
11. It is indeed trite to state that the concept of
equality, enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, is not in a negative sense. In fact, it is in the
positive sense. Therefore, the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is untenable.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does
not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is
hereby dismissed.
13. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,
also stands disposed of.
14. No order as to costs.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 28th May, 2021
Rathour
