Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mukesh Jakhar vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 26 April, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.060/141/2020
PRONOUNCED ON: 26.04.2025
RESERVED ON: 08.04.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Mukesh Jakhar D/o Sh Ram Chandra Jakhar, Aged 39 years,
Working as TGT (Maths), Government Middle School, Sector 33-
B, Chandigarh, R/o H. No. 23, Gulmohar Avenue, Dhakoli, Punjab
160104.Group C.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Rohit Seth).
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through its Finance Secretary-cum-
Secretary, Education Department, U.T. Secretariat, Sector-9,
Chandigarh. 160009.
2. Directorate of School Education, Education Department,
Chandigarh Administration, 1st Floor, Additional Deluxe Building,
Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Director 160009.
3. District Education Officer, Education Department, Chandigarh
Administration, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector-9, Chandigarh
160009.
4. Tarun Kumar Chabbra, Working as TGT Hindi, Government
Middle School, Pocket No. 10, Manimajra-160101.
5. Navjoban Singh, Working as TGT SST, Government Model Sr.
Secondary School, Sector 20, Chandigarh-160020.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Aseem Rai).
2
ORDER
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
(i) Quash proposed promotion List dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure A-1 Colly) circulated by DEO vide letter dated 07.02.2020 to the extent it relates to promotion as Lecturers /PGT in Commerce in as much as it contains names of private respondents who do not have skill /pedagogical training i.e B.Ed. in Commerce while excluding the name of applicant despite being eligible as per rules and NCTE norms.
(ii) Direct the respondents to redraft the proposed list for making promotion as Lecturers / PGT in Commerce in as much as it should be restricted to incorporating names of only those individuals who have Masters Degree in Commerce with B.Ed in Commerce which is the skill / pedagogical training to teach Commerce to Sr. Secondary Classes while including the name of applicant being eligible.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is B.Com and additional B.A with Mathematics, M.Com and completed her B.Ed. with teaching of Commerce and Maths, from NCTE recognized Institution. Applicant joined government service as regular JBT Teacher on 08.03.2002 and was promoted as TGT Maths on 02.01.2015. The applicant became eligible to be considered for promotion as PGT Commerce on 02.01.2020. According to applicant as on date, there are 7 clear vacancies of PGT Commerce. The vacancy position can be seen from the perusal of letter dated 14.01.2019 vide which the respondents had requested to initiate the promotion cases to fill the 3 vacancies of PGT's. Though 8 vacancies are reflected in the said letter but 1 post of PGT Commerce was filled by promoting one Ms. Indu Bala in March 2019 leaving 7 vacancies as on date in commerce stream.
3. The Chandigarh Administration has formulated Recruitment Rules for promotion as Lecturer (Post Graduate Teacher) on dated 06.02.1991 read with amendment dated 26.03.1991, namely "Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group C) Recruitment Rues, 1991". Thereafter, the Department amended above mentioned RRs for Direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers in the year 2001. As per amended rules the condition of essential and other qualification for the post of Lecturer (Post Graduate Teacher) is post graduate degree in relevant subject with atleast 50% marks in aggregate from recognized university, with Bachelor of Education with relevant teaching subject from institute recognized by NCTE with atleast 45% marks is required. Further, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has made the regulations on 12.12.2014 which specifies qualifications for the recruitment and promotion of the teacher in educational institution. Clause 4(b) indicates that for promotion of teachers the relevant minimum qualifications as specified in first and second Schedule are applicable for consideration from one level to next level. The case of the applicant pertains to a Teacher of Senior Secondary 4 School, the relevant portion of the regulations as given in the First Schedule to the National Council for Teacher Education relating to qualification, which indicates for appointment of a teacher in Senior Secondary School the requirement is Master Degree in the relevant subject with Bachelors' of Education or its equivalent.
4. The respondents circulated proposed promotion list to fill various posts in various subjects including the post of PGT Commerce vide letter dated 26.11.2019 in which the name of applicant is reflected at Sr. No. 78. The aforesaid list contains names of 7 other individuals who have been proposed to be promoted as PGT. Person at Sr. No. 60 i.e. private respondent No. 4, is a TGT Hindi and he has Masters Degree (M.Com) but not B.Ed. in relevant subject i.e. Teaching of Commerce. He has his B.Ed. in teaching of Hindi. Similarly the person at Sr. No. 70 i.e. private respondent No.5, is a TGT Social Studies and he also has Masters Degree (M.Com) but not with B.Ed. in relevant teaching subject i.e. Teaching of Commerce. He has his B.Ed. in teaching of Social Studies. From this, it is clear that though they have their Masters Degree in Commerce they do not have skill/pedagogical training (B.Ed. in teaching of Commerce).
5. In view of the fact that the names of ineligible incumbents were incorporated in the proposed list of promotions as PGT 5 Commerce, the applicant submitted representation dated 19.12.2019. The applicant highlighted that the RRs 1991 specifically requires that the candidate must posses Masters Degree (M.Com) with B.Ed. According to applicant it implies that it is a combination of both Masters Degree and B.Ed. in the same teaching subject which needs to be considered in totality. B.Ed with irrelevant teaching subject means that the candidate has knowledge of different subject and teaching skills of different subject which may affect career of thousands of students studying in different govt schools of UT Chandigarh. And the aforesaid requirement cannot be overlooked while making promotions as the same is considered to be imperative while making direct recruitment. Applicant has contended that B.Ed is a professional degree that is must for teaching higher classes from class 6 to 12 for teaching specific subjects in which the teacher is trained. Hence there could not be any justification for a Master/ Mistress with a post Graduate degree of M.Com but teaching a non Commerce subject at the B.Ed level. As M.Com is a content part / knowledge part of qualification whereas B.Ed is a technique to deliver that content and knowledge further to the students in the right pedagogical form. Applicant has prayed, not to consider those who do not possess relevant teaching subject i.e. Teaching of Commerce at the B.Ed. level for promotion to 6 the post of Lecturer Commerce (School Cadre) because they are not professionally trained for teaching of Commerce.
6. According to applicant, vide letter dated 07.02.2020 the office of D.E.O. has circulated the proposed promotion list dated 04.02.2020 for the post of Lecturer in specified teaching subjects. The aforesaid list contains the name of 6 proposed incumbents including the private respondents for promotion as Lecturer in Commerce. The names of applicant has been removed from the list for reasons best known to the respondents, whereas ineligible incumbents who do have their Masters Degree in Commerce but do not have skill/pedagogical training i.e. B.Ed. to be qualified to teach Commerce, which is the relevant subject have been retained in violation of qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of PGT in Commerce/Lecturer in Commerce in terms of NCTE qualification and norms read with the prevalent recruitment rules and the names of ineligibles are being considered by DPC which is most likely to be convened on 14.02.2020 for making promotions to the post of as Lecturers in Commerce/PGT Commerce and the respondents themselves have taken a stand in earlier case relating to the same post that candidates has to have B.Ed. in the relevant subject with Masters. Hence the present O.A. 7
7. This Tribunal vide interim order dated 13.02.2020 had restrained the respondents from considering private respondents No.4 and 5 for promotion to the post of PGT Commerce.
8. We have perused list dated 04.02.2020 issued by Director, School Education, Chandigarh Administration to District School Education Officer, Chandigarh Administration regarding promotion of lecturers in various subjects. From the list, we find that in certain cases the candidates proposed to be promoted do not belong to relevant subject for example a person with qualification in Maths is being considered for promotion against vacancy in Punjabi or being considered for promotion from Hindi against Commerce vacancy etc. There are many such mismatches. Similarly, in the proposed panel for vacancies in December 2020, we find person being promoted from Punjabi against vacancy in History and so forth. So perusal of above shows there are lot of cases regarding promotion of candidates against vacancies for which in our view they do not have relevant qualification. These cross promotions do not appear to be justified.
9. We have also perused written statement of respondents No.1 to 3 filed on 02.11.2020 which has relied upon recruitment rules notified on 06.02.1991 called "The Chandigarh Educational Service (School Cadre) (Group C) Recruitment 8 Rules, 1991." Wherein qualification prescribed for promotion are as follows:-
Name Educational and Whether the age In case of of Post other and Education recruitment by qualification Qualification promotion/deput required to prescribed direct ation /transfer direct recruits will grades from recruitment apply in the case which of promotes promotion/deput ation/ transfer to be made (1) (7) (8) (11) Essential Age: No By promotion Lecturer (i) M.A./M.Sc. Qualification: From amongst (PGT) /M.Com with Yes Masters/Mistress atleast 50% es (TGTs) Cadre marks from a with five years recognized regular service University in the grade of
(ii) B.T./B.Ed. TGT Thereafter, vide amendment dated 26.03.1991 following amendment has been introduced:-
Sr. Column No.(8)
No.
1. Age: No
Qualification: No But he must possess master's degree in the relevant subject with B.T./B.Ed. The condition of obtaining 50% marks in M.A./M.Sc.
/M.Com will not be applicable in the case of appointments other than by direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer.
10. According to respondents, it was never intention of the rule makers that one must possess skill/training in relevant teaching subject in the B.Ed. Department has to conduct meeting of DPC in which claims of all the Masters/Mistresses 9 whose case have been forwarded by the District Education Officer, Chandigarh will be considered. Further, respondents have stated that as per guidelines for framing Recruitment Rules, it is provided at Rule 3.9 under the heading "Age/Educational Qualification for Promotees" that educational qualifications are not generally insisted upon in the case of promotion to post of non-technical nature; but for specific and technical posts, these should be insisted upon, in the interest of administrative efficiency. The list prepared on 04.02.2020 (Annexure A) is as per RRs of 1991 after checking eligibility conditions. The O.A. is premature as this list is yet to be considered by DPC after checking eligibility conditions as per RRs and instructions issued by Administration.
11. Respondents have further stated that there are different quotas with different ratios which are available to fill the post of Lecturers i.e. by way of direct recruitment 35%, by promotion 45% and by transfer on deputation 20%. So the promotion quota is being given after the calculation of vacancies. Hence under 1991 RRS regular Master/Mistress who is having 5 years in the grade of TGT and who possesses Master's degree in the relevant subject and B.Ed. is eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer. Respondents have concluded by stating that list is based on provisions of recruitment rules of 1991 as amended from time to time and 10 rules have not been challenged in the O.A. The O.A. according to respondents does not have merit.
12. We find no specific reference has been made to the amended Rules of 2001 or why they are not applicable in this case and why Rules of 1991 are being considered. We have also perused rejoinder dated 14.03.2004 of the applicant to written statement of respondents No.1 to 3. The applicant has reiterated that her name was removed from zone of consideration in proposed list of 04.02.2000 without considering her objections raised in her representation dated 19.12.2019 to the earlier proposed promotion list dated 26.11.2019. We find no reasons for this action have been given by the respondents in their averments.
13. We have also seen written statement of respondents No.4 and 5 filed on 11.09.2020 wherein they have claimed that they are senior to the original applicant Mukesh Jakhar and Tribunal while entertaining present O.A. of the applicant passed order dated 13.02.2020 restraining promoting respondents No.4 and 5, which has resulted in great injustice to them. According to them, the proposed list was prepared for PGT Commerce in which there was no requirement to have Commerce teaching subject in B.Ed. under 1991 Rules. Respondents No.4 and 5 are seeking promotion in promotional quota as PGT (Commerce) under 1991 Rules and not for direct posts under 11 2001 Rules which have been framed for direct recruitment only. But don't they need to be applied for promotion of those recruited post 2001?
14. We have also perused rejoinder dated 30.08.2021 filed by the applicant to written statement of respondents No.4 and 5. Applicant has also relied upon judgment dated 01.03.19936 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja vs. State of Punjab to emphasise her contention that "principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher position while maintaining the morale of the whole organization. The best public interest is served when equal opportunities for promotion exist for all qualified employees. Hence the action of the respondents is defeating the selection of the best suitable incumbent for promotion as PGT Commerce". She also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 12.05.2017 in CWP No.10239 of 2017 (Manju Rani and Another vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others), 24.01.2012 in CWP No.14380 of 2010 (Kirandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) as also Apex Court order in S.B. Bhattacharya vs. S.D. Majumdar and others holding that employee has fundamental right to be considered for promotion.
15. The issue for our consideration is which rules are applicable in this case i.e. whether 1991 Rules which are applicable to 12 promote or 2001 Rules which are applicable to direct recruits. We find that Rules of 2001 have prescribed very specifically and clearly educational qualification required for direct recruitment. However, we find 1991 Rules which are being applied to promotees do not have requisite clarity in this regard and seem to have been interpreted by respondents unfairly. The Rules amended on 26.03.1991 states the he must possess Master's Degree in the relevant subject with BT/B.Ed. 'With' is a proposition and used as in the sense of 'accompanying' primarily an adjective or possessing something. So here statute must be interpreted to state that B.Ed./BT degree must accompany a Master's degree in relevant subject. As also understood in common parlance, in our view, B.Ed. degree must accompany a degree in relevant subject. As the two aspects are inter-related, so in our view, B.Ed. degree must be in relevant subject only.
16. Further, we find that the applicant and others have been recruited after notification of Rules on 2001 and her case should have been considered in terms of RRs of 2001 and if she possesses Degree in accordance with the Rules of 2001 at the time of recruitment, she is entitled for consideration accordingly even at the time of promotion. Further, we find that her name has been removed from zone of consideration itself in proposed list of 04.02.2020 and the written statement 13 filed by the respondents does not refer to this issue as to why her claim was dropped and why her objections raised in representation dated 19.12.2019 to the earlier proposed list dated 26.11.2019 have not been considered. No specific reference has been made in the written statement by respondents to the amended Rules of 2001 and why they are not applicable to this case. The contention of the respondents that it was never intention of the rule makers that one must possess skill/training in relevant teaching subject in the B.Ed. is not tenable.
17. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment dated 12.05.2018 in the case of Manju Rani and Anr. vs. HPSC held that "In the absence of definition of relevant subject and further expansion of any related subjects and in the absence of notifying the same in the advertisement, one has to draw inference that relevant subject means reference to relevant subjects to the post like in the present case Assistant Professor Zoology." Further in the case of Kirandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.01.2012 has held that "They may have known different branches of living sciences but when there is reference to Guru Nanak Studies, I cannot allow this to be understood in any sense that it could relate to a specialization in Punjabi." 14
18. In the light of above discussions, we find merit in the O.A. Accordingly, Annexure A-1 dated 04.02.2020 is quashed and set aside to the extent it relates to promotion as Lecturers/PGT in Commerce, in as much as it contains names of private respondents who do not have skill/pedagogical training i.e. B.Ed. in Commerce while excluding the name of applicant despite being eligible as per rules and NCTE norms. Hence the respondents are directed to redraft proposed promotion list by restricting it to incorporate names of only those individuals who have Master's degree in Commerce with B.Ed. in Commerce, which is pedagogical skill to teach Commerce to secondary classes, by including name of applicant for considering her case for grant of promotion in Commerce stream against one of the 7 vacancies of PGT Commerce/Lecturers.
19. The O.A. is allowed in the above terms. The entire exercise to be carried out within eight weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No orders to cost.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /kr/