Single Judge Benches of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of three writ petitions challenging a Government Circular on promotion guidelines. The court held the guidelines were not contrary to statutory rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13134/2015
Sher Singh Chouhan vs. The State of Rajasthan
& ors. & ors.
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14303/2015
Ram Chandra Mali vs. The State of Rajasthan & anr. & ors. (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 50/2016 Narayan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & anr. & ors.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Date of Order: 17.3.2016.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Mr. C.S. Kotwani, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG with Mr. Rishab Tayal, Advocate, & Mr. B.L. Bhati, GC, for respondents.
BY THE COURT:
2
English, Maths, Science, Social Science, third language and Senior Teachers (General).
3
opportunity of promotion of Teacher Grade-III of Commerce subject had been provided for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher (General) by 100% promotion. After the incorporation of the amendment, a letter was issued by the Joint Secretary on 15.4.2015 whereby it was directed that DPC be convened up till 30.4.2015 for each subject while taking the ratio of 1:7 of the entire available units. Subsequently, the impugned Circular dated 16.10.2015 was issued recalling the earlier Circular issued on 15.4.2015 , wherein a criteria of eligibility was incorporated for promotion. The petitioners are being aggrieved by the Circular dated 16.10.2015, which accordingly to the petitioners, is against the Rules.
3 It is contended by Mr. H.S. Sidhu & Mr. C.S. Kotwani learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as per the Rules, the criteria of promotion of a Teacher grade-III to the post of Senior Teacher in Hindi, English, Maths, Science, third language, Social Science was 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by seniority and avenue of promotion for Teacher Grade-III who belong to the stream Commerce, Agriculture, Drawing, Crafts, Music etc to post of Senior teacher (General) is by 100% promotion. It is argued that by the impugned Circular dated 16.10.2015, the post meant for Senior Teacher (General) will be filled up by promotion from Teachers who are eligible to be promoted on the post of Senior Teachers Hindi, English,
4
Maths, Science etc. The formula, as set out in the Circular, has been challenged being de hors the Rules.
5
of service and it gave rise to anomalies, (d) on account of issuance of the letter dated 15.4.2015 by adopting 1/7th criteria (in other subjects than main 6 subjects Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science, third language) the posts meant for being filled in through promotion were getting more, they will further tend to increase and (e) the number of available candidates were for the post of Senior Teacher (General) other than 6 main subjects were also comparatively lesser. Therefore, the recommendation came to be made for promotion to the post of Head Master in Elementary Education and Head Teacher in Secondary Education, which the total posts should be bifurcated in the proportion of availability of the subject candidates and a formula was suggested to ensure promotional avenue to each subject. It is in this back ground that instructions vide letter dated 16.10.2015 came to be issued.
6
year 2008 the method of appointing a senior teacher was 50% by promotion by way of seniority irrespective of the subject taught. With the amendment in the rules and introduction of Rule 8 (a), and Rule 8(d) promotion to post of senior teacher came to be subject wise. Initially it was decided that promotion would be by following the criteria of 1/7th . A committee constituted to look into the issue found out that the number post to be filled in through promotion were on the higher side than those to be filled in through direct recruitment, the candidates of subjects Mathematics, Science and English revealed to be available lesser and the candidates of social science were more. the criteria of filling post of 1/7th criteria as withdrawn and a formula came to be developed by which an endeavor was made to ensure that equal promotional avenues to all subjects including the general one was maintained. The formula is as under:
1. The total posts of Headmaster in Elementary Education – Upper Primary Education and Head Teacher in Secondary Education should be divided in the ratio of subject wise eligible candidates for promotion.
2 For allotment of year wise total posts from year 2008-09 of Headmaster – Upper Primary School in Elementary Education and Head Teacher in Secondary Education the following action be taken :-
(a) For promotion to the post of Senior Teacher the number of available vacant posts for promotion to that subject of Secondary Education be subtracted from the number of subjectwise available eligible candidates.
7
(b) On the basis of sum of candidates received in point No.(a) the percentage of subject-wise eligible available candidates be obtained as follows :-
Number of subject-wise eligible candidates according to point (a) Percentage of subjectwise = ---------------------------X 100 eligible available candidates Sum of number of eligible candidates of all seven subjects according to point (a )
(c) The posts of available Headmaster – Upper Primary School and Head Teacher should be allotted subject-wise on the basis of said percentage.
(d) The number of total posts of a subject should be calculated by adding the posts received from point (c) to subjectwise sanctioned posts.
(e) After calculation of total posts according to point No.(d) the number of posts for direct recruitment and promotion as per rules be calculated.
(f) If the figures of promotion from the final vacant posts are received in negative then nil promotion be made to that subject.(As translated from Circular dated 16.10.2015)
8
regards the right to promotion is well settled in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors [(1993) supp. 3 SCC 575] where Bench of three judges had held that no employee has a right to promotion but he has only the right to be considered for promotion according to rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service and are defeasible in accordance with the law. A person only has a right to be considered for promotion against the vacancies if he fulfills the eligibility prescribed under the Statute/rules. Fixing eligibility falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature and cannot be a subject matter of judicial review unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed / prescribed without keeping in mind the nature of services for which the appointments are to be made or it has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute. It is always permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications / eligibility in the matter of appointments/ promotions to different posts.
9
science were more, to name a few anomalies. To give an equal opportunity to all, the respondent State formulated the criterion which cannot be said to be in contravention to the rules. The rules only provide that promotion is to be made from Teachers to Senior teachers in Hindi and five other subjects by maintaining a ratio of 50% from direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and also 100% by promotion to Senior teacher (General). The chart appended with the additional affidavit clearly demonstrates the formula adopted to remove the imbalance in the ratio of teachers to be promoted is not arbitrary or ill founded. In order to settle the balance, guidelines have been issued on 16.10.2015 and in fact the petitioners have not been able to show how they are being put at a disadvantage or in which manner the guidelines are inconsistent with the rules.
(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.
mlt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned Circular dated 16.10.2015 issued by the respondent State for allotting posts of Senior Teachers is de hors the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971.
Whether the criteria formulated by the respondent State to remove anomalies in promotion eligibility for teachers of Commerce subject violates the statutory rules or prejudices the petitioners.
Whether the formula adopted by the State for equal promotional avenues to all subjects including the general one is arbitrary or ill-founded.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Sri Somasundaram VishwanathReferred¶42
Union of India v. Sri Somasundaram Vishwanath, AIR 1988 SC 2255 · Who else cites this
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶43
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors [(1993) supp. 3 SCC 575] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sher Singh Chouhan
Ram Chandra Mali
Narayan Singh
The State of Rajasthan
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
