The petitioner has been granted promotion as Lecturer in Civics in an Intermediate College governed by The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act 1982 and The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998 framed thereunder. The Rule of Promotion is Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules which is quoted below:
"Rule 14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.- (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade, if any, who possess the qualifications, prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day on the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same.
Notes- For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognized institution shall be counted for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post.
(2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit.
(3) The Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix 'A'.
(4) Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the management under sub-rule (3), the Inspector shall verify the facts from the record of his office and forward the list to the Joint Director.
(5) The Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in sub-rule (3) and may call such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 12 and after the committee's recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management.
(6) Within ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Joint Director under sub-rule (5), the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidates to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy and the Management shall accordingly on authorisation under its resolution issue the appointment order in the proforma given in Appendix 'F' to the such candidate."
The selection has to be therefore made under Section 12 by a Statutory Committee and not by the Management. Section 12 of 1982 Act is quoted below:
Section 12. Procedure of selection by promotion. (1) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee, for making selection of candidates for promotion to the post of a teacher, comprising
(i) Regional Joint Director of Education: --- Chairman
(ii) Senior most principal of Government Inter College in the region: Member
(iii) Concerned District Inspector of School: ---Member/Secretary (2) The procedure of selection of candidates for promotion to the post of a teacher shall be such as may be prescribed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proposal of the Committee was sent on 26th May 2003 and after waiting for five years the claim of the petitioner has been approved by the Competent Authority which has caused not only pecuniary but other losses including seniority in the grade of Lecturer. Learned counsel therefore submits that reasonably construing the period provided under the aforesaid rules the authority ought to have granted approval with retrospective effect.
Learned counsel submits that notional promotion could have been granted from a prior date and therefore the impugned order deserves to be modified by giving effect to the same from the date the petitioner was found entitled for promotion under the proposal of the committee of management.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that such a provision does not exist so as to give notional promotion with retrospective effect and even otherwise the rules as constructed provide for issuance of a letter of appointment after selection by the competent authority under Section 12 quoted above. The appointment has to be made on probation thereafter under Rule 14 in the prescribed format.
Having considered the rival submissions, it is evident that the aforesaid rules do require the authorities to take action within a prescribed time. Every step has been delayed and therefore the authorities are under an obligation to decide the claim of an incumbent within a reasonable time. However, in the absence of any rule to the contrary the benefit of notional promotion as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
If the petitioner was aggrieved by any delay on the part of the respondents he ought to have approached this court by filing a writ petition at an early stage and should not have awaited the decision of the authorities for five long years.
The Rules also provide a mode of consideration whereafter a letter of appointment has to be issued in the proforma prescribed on the directions of the District Inspector of Schools by the committee of management. The committee of management is not in a position to issue a letter of appointment unless there is a valid selection by the competent authority under Section 12 read with Rule 14. In view of this it would not be possible for the committee of management to extend any such benefit and unless such letter of appointment is issued the petitioner cannot be presumed to have occupied the post on a substantive basis from the date of proposal.
Accordingly, the plea raised, in view of the terse nature of the rule, cannot be granted.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2010 Sahu