Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Arora vs State Of Punjab & Or.S on 20 November, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP no.2330 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP no.2330 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2014
Sanjeev Arora
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
1)Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?Yes
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
Present : Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Addl. AG, Punjab
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The rules would indicate that for a social studies Master an incumbent should possess a degree of B.A with subject combination as approved by the Government from time to time. This would assume significance since the cause of the petitioner for promotion as a Master has been declined on the ground that he did not possess the subject combination as approved by the Government.
The reply is silent on this aspect and repeated opportunities given to the respondents to clarify this aspect has yielded no result but when this Court was inclined to impose costs upon the respondents for impeding the progress of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the State on instructions from Sh. Rajiv Puri, Senior Assistant states that the subject combination as given in the advertisement (Annexure P-9) is the one which has been approved and should be construed valid for the purpose of REKHA 2014.12.04 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no.2330 of 2012 (O&M) 2 answering this writ petition. The advertisement prescribes the following subject combination:-
(E) Basic qualification and vocational qualification
1. Social Studies Master/Mistress:
BT or B.Ed alongwith graduation degree according to subject combination approved by the Government. Any two subjects out of the following:
History, Pol. Science, Economics, Geography, Public Administration, Psychology, Sociology, Mass Communication, Philosophy, Statics, Environment Studies, Elective English or English Literature, Business Management, Business Administration, Commerce, Accountancy, Maths." The petitioner on the other hand has B.Com and M.Com to his credit besides B.A. If the certificates appended to the petition indicating successful achievement of B.Com and M.Com degrees earned by the petitioner are to be considered then subjects of Commerce, Accountancy, Statistics, Business Management and Business Administration form an integral part of the course and included therein and thus the reasoning adopted by the respondents to deny the petitioner promotion on this score would be highly absurd and arbitrary.
The facts would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as ETT teacher on 23.12.1997. The petitioner improved his qualification by acquiring M.Com degree in the year 2001. Thereafter he completed his B.Ed also in the year 2003. In this way the petitioner had acquired and accomplished the requisite qualification in terms of the rules and was thus eligible for being promoted as Social Studies Master. REKHA 2014.12.04 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no.2330 of 2012 (O&M) 3
The plea of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the subject combination as approved by the Government from time to time without even indicating to the petitioner the deficiencies in this regard was completely arbitrary.
Assuming that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification in terms of the rules he should have at least been apprised of the deficiency in the educational qualification and which subject combination he did not possess. Rather the respondents chose to leave this aspect to ambiguity forcing the petitioner to come to this Court. The reply filed by them is equally ambiguous without any attempt being made to disclose this lack of qualification to the petitioner and on what count his claim has been declined. It is only during the course of arguments when confronted with an uncomfortable situation of being visited with costs for impeding the progress of the petition that the respondents conjured up an instant response to fall back on the lack of qualifications/subject combination indicated in the advertisement appended to the petition by the petitioner himself.
Evidently the respondents have been more than arbitrary in their approach to the cause of the petitioner who seeks promotion to the post of Social Studies Master. Finding that the petitioner is adequately possessed of the qualification prescribed in the rules, I am of the opinion that he has been unjustly kept away from the benefit of promotion which in the meantime has been given to most of the persons who are juniors to him . Petition is, thus, accepted and while holding the petitioner eligible for promotion the same is disposed of with a clear mandate to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion with effect from REKHA 2014.12.04 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no.2330 of 2012 (O&M) 4 the date when his juniors were promoted. Let the needful be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to say that all consequential benefits shall also be made available to the petitioner. Petition is accepted with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner.
November 20, 2014 (MAHESH GROVER)
rekha JUDGE
REKHA
2014.12.04 15:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh