Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Satiram vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 10 October, 2023
1 OA No.200/78/2012
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/78/2012
Gwalior, this Tuesday, the 10th day of October, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Satiram, S/o late Shri Ramchandra, aged about 52 years, Post Graduate
Teacher (English), Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mandla, R/o Badi Khairi Qr. No.3,
Type III, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Campus, Dindori Road, Mandla - 481661
(M.P.) -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.
Lavanya Verma)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, through its Commissioner, 18,
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110016.
2. Joint Commissioner, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110016.
3. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mandla (M.P.) 481661.
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Ms. Sonal Pandey, proxy counsel of Shri Pankaj
Dubey)
(Date of reserving order 25.08.2023)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
The applicant is challenging the memorandum dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure A-1), whereby he has been reverted from the post of PGT (English) to the post of TGT (English).
Page 1 of 72 OA No.200/78/2012
2. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs in this Original Application:
"8.(i) Call for the entire material record pertaining to the instant controversy from the respondents for its kind perusal.
(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned reversion order dated 05.01.2012 Annexure A/1;
(iii) After quashing the impugned order Annexure A/1, direct the respondent authorities to give all consequential benefits to the applicant in terms of pay perks and status for the post of PGT (English);
(iv) Grant any other relief/s, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the applicant.
(v) Award cost of the instant lis to the applicant."
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Primary Teacher (PRT) in the year 1983 and was promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (English).
3.1 The applicant submits that since one of his junior was promoted as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in the year 2002, the applicant agitated his grievance before the respondents for his promotion from TGT to PGT (English).
Page 2 of 7 3 OA No.200/78/2012 3.2 The grievance of the applicant was subsequently mitigated in the year 2005 and he was promoted to PGT (English) vide order dated 20.01.2005. However, on 08.11.2011 (Annexure A-2), a memorandum in the form of show cause notice was served to the applicant to submit his explaination as to why he shall not be reverted from the post of PGT (English) to TGT (English).
3.3 The applicant submitted his reply dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure A-5). However, without taking into consideration the contentions of the averments made in the reply, the respondents have issued the impugned memorandum dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure A-1) reverting him to the post of TGT (English). 3.4 The applicant submits that as per the Recruitment Rules of 1971 (Annexure A-3), the qualification of Graduation with at least 45% marks and B.Ed. is required for promotion from PRT to TGT. The rule gives a relaxation that 45% marks in Graduation will not be applicable in cases who have rendered five years of service as PRT. Similarly for promotion to PGT, the basic difference is of educational qualification of having Master Degree. 3.4 Subsequently, the Recruitment Rules of 1971 were amended w.e.f. 14.05.2010, i.e. the date when the BOG has taken the decision to amend the Page 3 of 7 4 OA No.200/78/2012 Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan (Appointment, Promotion and Seniority etc.) Rules and the amendment was taken place vide office memorandum dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure A-4). As per the said amendment, the essentiality of having B.Ed. degree have been waived off. But, the respondents have not given any weightage to the aforesaid amended rules before reverting the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted that on the basis of the very same Recruitment Rules, the applicant was promoted as TGT (English) on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC. The necessity of having B.Ed. or equivalent from a recongnished university was also there in the Recruitment Rules when the applicant was promoted as TGT and now there is no justified reason to snatch his promotion to PGT (English) relying on the same Recruitment Rules.
5. In their reply, the respondents state that the applicant was erroneously promoted as PGT (English) as he was not having the requisite qualification of MA, B.Ed as he possesses the qualification of MA, BTC. Therefore, on receipt of the record of the applicant, it was found that offer issued on promotion to the post of PGT (English) was not as per the Recruitment Page 4 of 7 5 OA No.200/78/2012 Rules and it was decided to withdraw the wrong promotion given to the applicant.
5.1 The amendment in the Recruitment Rules as per Annexure A-4 is made for promotion through Limited Departmental Examination and this amendment is not applicable to the applicant.
6. The applicant has also filed his rejoinder, wherein he has quoted the example of one Shri B.N. Bhaskar, who was promoted as PGT (Hindi) along with the applicant and not having qualification of B.Ed. The applicant submits that the said person is still continuing as PGT (Hindi).
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
8. It is undisputed fact that the applicant is having the educational qualification i.e. M.A (English) with BTC. As per the Recruitment Rules, which were in force for promotion to the post of PGT in the year 2005, the applicant was not having the requisite qualification prescribed for PGT (English), i.e. MA, B.Ed., which was essential as per Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the promotion granted to the applicant on the post of PGT Page 5 of 7 6 OA No.200/78/2012 (English) was admittedly not as per rules. The amendment in the Recruitment Rules, whereby the essentiality of having B.Ed.is waived off, has taken place in the year 2010 and cannot be applied retrospectively w.e.f. 2005 when the applicant was promoted as PGT (English). Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the DPC had recommended the promotion of the applicant as PGT (English) after considering the qualification required for the said post and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to reverse the finding of the DPC. But the fact still remains the same as the applicant was not having the requisite B.Ed. when he was promoted as PGT (English). In any case, DPC cannot decide the eligibility criteria for promotion beyond the Recruitment Rules and it is meant to assess the suitability of the person for promotion on the basis of the service records and APARs for the relevant years.
9. The only relief for which the applicant can said to be entitled is refund of the amount recovered on account of his reversion as there was no misrepresentation on behalf of the applicant regarding his promotion from TGT (English) to PGT (English) and the said recovery cannot said to be permissible in the eyes of law.
Page 6 of 7 7 OA No.200/78/2012
10. Having considered the entire facts of the case, we do not find any illegality in the impugned memorandum dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure A-1). However, the respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the applicant in pursuance to the memorandum dated 05.01.2012, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With these observations, this Original Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 7 of 7