JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, on 6.3.2006.
2. The controversy is between the appellant and the private respondent regarding promotion to a post which fell vacant on 2.4.2000. The post was that of an lecturer Sanskrit. The private respondent had been appointed in 1982 and was working in C.T grade until 1998 when by adeeming fiction in a statute which we mentioned, below, she became an L.T grade Teacher with effect from 10 years of completion of her service i.e with effect from 1992.
3. C.T grade stands for certificate of teaching which would be available to diploma holders also and L.T grade stands for licentiate of teaching which would be available only to Graduate Teachers. C.T grade was in effect abolished from 1989. Pay equality was also ordered earlier but we are not concerned with those provisions. We are concerned with promotion and promotion only.
4. It is the admitted position that the appellant became an L.T grade Teacher upon regularisation only in the year 1993. The benefit of deemed L.T grade status is claimed by the private respondent on the basis of Section 33-D of the U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. The said Section is set out below:
[33-D, Special provision for Certificate of Teaching grade teachers.- Every teacher in the Certificate of Teaching grade, who is a trained graduate and, -
(a) has completed ten years' continuous satisfactory service in the said grade on or before January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from January 1, 1986; or
(b) completes the said service of ten years after January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from the date of completion of the said service of ten years;
be deemed to have been appointed in the Trained Graduate Grade.]
5. Mr. Padia appearing for the appellant sought to rely upon a Full Bench decision of our High Court in the case of Smt. S.K. Chaudhari v. Manager, Committee of Management reported at (1991) UPLBEC 250 and placed portions of the judgement to show that a statute is ordinarily to be construed as prospective in operation unless express words on necessary implication indicates otherwise.
6. The express words in Sub-section (b) of Section 33-D indicates that the obtaining of L.T grade would be available to the employee concerned from the date of completion of ten year of service. As such, although the private respondents completed such ten years of service, six year before this statutory provisions was enacted, yet the statute clearly mentions that the benefit would be available to her six years before the enactment. No principle of construction need be adopted. The words themselves are clear. It was then submitted for the appellant that the private respondent would be disqualified for promotion to a post which open up only in 2000 because her real and factual service as an L.T grade Teacher started only from 1998 and she would not be having five year requisite continuous regular service in L.T grade as such, which is required by Rule 14 of the U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998. The said Rule is quoted below:
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 of 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.
7. Seeking to fortify his argument Mr. Padia gave the Division Bench decision of our High Court in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Param Hansh Intermediate College reported at 1981 UPLBEC 50. He placed paragraph- 6 of the said judgement and the said paragraph is reproduced below:
In the second place, it was submitted that the petitioner had been appointed in the C.T grade on August 7, 1971 and in continuation he was appointed in the L.T grade in this very institution on September 6, 1974. His experience in the C.T grade was also liable to be taken into consideration while computing five years service. The argument is based on a misreading of Regulation 6(1). In that regulation, the relevant clause is "all teacher working in the L.T or C.T grade, as the case may be." This requirement is for filling the vacancy by promotion m the L.T grade or the lecturer's grade. It is well known that C.T grade is lower than L.T grade and the lecturers grade. The underlying idea was that for the lecturer's grade the field of eligibility was extended to L.T grade teachers and for filling U.P. L.T, grade the field of eligibility was C.T grade teachers. For filling the lecturer's grade post only L.T grade teachers must be those who have minimum of five years continuous substantive service. The phrase "all teachers working in L.T or C.T grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit" clearly means that for the post of lecturer's grade the L.T grade teachers alone would be eligible and they should have minimum of five years service as such, namely, in the L.T grade. Service in the C.T grade was not relevant for the purpose of computing the minimum five years service for promotion to the lecturer's grade.
8. The argument was therefore made that even if the private respondent might be deemed to have become an L.T grade teacher from 1992 yet she did not work "as such" until 1998 itself. Thus, she is disqualified by Rule 14.
9. In our opinion, this seeks to rob the deeming provision of Section 33-D of the entirety of its effect. The deeming fictions have no purpose excepting the purpose of conferring higher grade and seniority. These are of value at the time of promotion and at the time of promotion only. Pay and other aspects have been equalised by means of other laws.
10. If we were to opine that the private respondent became a deemed L.T grade teacher from 1992 but for the purpose of promotion and seniority she will be taken to be a L.T grade Teacher only from 2.4.1998 when Section 33-D came into, statute book, we would be reading words into Section 33-D which we are not permitted in the present circumstances.
11. In our opinion the deeming fiction of Section 33-D is operative for ail purposes and the only purpose appears to be seniority and promotion which is all that is involved in this appeal.
12. The appeal is therefore dismissed.