1. Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. A writ of certiorari has been prayed by sole petitioner Smt. Sandhya Srivastava for quashing order dated 02.09.2004 passed by Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U. P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred as 'ADE(S)') cancelling promotion of petitioner and another teacher on post of Lecturer on the ground that they did not satisfy requisite eligibility conditions. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed directing respondents not to interfere in the functioning of petitioner as Lecturer in Government Girls Inter College, Azamgarh and to pay her admissible salary as payable since 31.07.2003.
3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) on ad hoc basis on 30.08.1990 in Government Higher Secondary School, Barha, Lalganj, Azamgarh, where she joined on 14.09.1990. She was transferred to Government Girls Inter College, Azamgarh and thereat she was regularized as Assistant Teacher (L. T. Grade) vide order dated 08.06.2002 in view of Government Order dated 17.08.2001. Thereafter by order dated 07.07.2003, petitioner was promoted as Lecturer (English) and posted in Government Girls Inter College, Atraulia, Azamgarh. However, aforesaid promotion order has been cancelled by impugned order dated 02.09.2004 on the ground that petitioner did not possess requisite eligibility qualifications. This order has been challenged on the ground that it is in utter violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to Rules and it is incorrect that petitioner did not possess requisite qualification on the post of Lecturer (English).
4. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that for promotion to the post of Lecturer, incumbent must have five years satisfactory service after substantive appointment and other qualifications, which the petitioner did not fulfill, hence, her promotion was wrongly made and when detected, it has been cancelled.
5. During course of argument, learned counsel for the parties admitted that promotion in the present case on the post of Lecturer in Government Girls Inter College is governed by Uttar Pradesh Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer's Cadre) Service Rules 1992 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 1992). Rule 5 of Rules 1992 talks of source of recruitment and divides Lecturer's cadre in Men's branch & Women's branch and reads as under:-
"5. Source of recruitment.-Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the Service shall be made from the following sources :
Lecturers-Men's Branch :
(i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the Commission.
(ii) fifty per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed Subordinate Education Service L. T. Grade Teachers (Men's Branch) who have completed five years' service, as such, on the first day of the year of recruitment and who possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post under Rule 8:
Provided that till the cadre of Extension Teachers and Craft Teachers of L. T. Grade of the Orientation Scheme is absorbed, the 50 per cent vacancies of the promotion quota shall be filled in as follows :
(a) Forty per cent from amongst substantively appointed Subordinate Education Service L. T. Grade Teachers who have completed five years' service, as such, on the first day of the year of recruitment and who possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post under Rule 8 ;
(b) Ten per cent from amongst substantively appointed Extension Teachers and Craft Teachers of L. T. Grade of the Orientation Scheme, who have completed five years' service, as such, on the first day of the year of recruitment and who possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post under Rule 8.
Lecturers-Women's Branch :
(i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the Commission.
(ii) Fifty per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed Subordinate Education Service L. T. Grade Teachers (Women's Branch) who have completed five years' service, as such, on the first day of the year of recruitment and who possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post under Rule 8 :
7. For promotion to the post of Lecturer under the Rules, the incumbent must have completed five years of service as substantively appointed in Subordinate Education Service of teachers on the first day on the year of recruitment. Year of recruitment has been defined in Rule 3 and reads as follows:-
"3. Definitions.-(n) 'Year of recruitment' means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of calendar year."
8. In the present case, petitioner was promoted as Lecturer on 07.07.2003. On 1.7.2003 she had completed a little more than one year as substantively appointed Subordinate Education Service (L.T. Grade) Teacher.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that ad hoc service rendered by petitioner is liable to be taken into consideration and that should not have been excluded. A careful reading of Rule 5 of Rules, 1992 shows that promotion to the extent of 50% from L.T. Grade Teacher is admissible to a woman teacher, who is substantively appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher and has completed five years service "as such".
10. I am not going into further issue of first day of year of recruitment, since, that will make no difference either way for the reason that if ad hoc service is counted, five years' service by all means has already been completed and if it is to be excluded, service rendered by petitioner as L.T. Grade Teacher, would be a little more than one year.
11. I have given careful consideration to aforesaid Rules & find that the word "as such" puts stress on the teacher who is to be promoted and that is substantively appointed in Subordinate Education Service as L. T. Grade Teacher. Five years' service, therefore, must be as substantively appointed L. T. Grade Teacher. It is not mere five years' experience as L.T. Grade Teacher or a continuous five years' service as L. T. Grade Teacher without any reference to the nature of appointment. The word "as such" added in the Rule by Legislative authority can neither be diluted nor be ignored, but has to be given due meaning and consequence as contemplated by Rule framing authority. If we read the requirement of five years' service in the manner as suggested by learned counsel for petitioner, words "as such" will render redundant and this cannot be done while interpreting a statutory provision. A provision has to be interpreted by simple interpretation if rule is clear, unambiguous and demonstrates no ambiguity. It is an obligation of Court not to unnecessarily add or omit any word or sentence or phrase from a statutory provision, unless consequences are such disastrous as no prudent legislature will ever conceive of such a consequence, which is not the case in hand.
11. In view thereof, it cannot be said that petitioner possessed requisite qualification for promotion on the post of Lecturer on the date when order of promotion was passed i.e. 07.07.2003, hence, it has been rightly cancelled by impugned order dated 02.09.2004.
12. Coming to the question that principles of natural justice, have not been complied with, I find that there are certain exceptions where a Court may decline to interfere merely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and one of such exception is when the conclusion drawn by Authorities in passing the order challenged before Court is same as that arrived at by the Court also. In such a case, for mere technicality and for multiplying litigation, Court does not interfere.
13. Having considered the issue on merits, since I am satisfied that impugned order has rightly been passed since petitioner did not possess requisite qualification as prescribed in Rule 5 of Rules 1992, I am of the view that it is not a fit case warranting interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
14. In view of above discussion, this writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. No costs.
Order Date : 30.01.2019 Manish Himwan