In a recent landmark case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the promotion eligibility dispute between C&V Teachers and the State of Haryana. The case revolves around the interpretation of Rules governing the promotion of teachers in the education sector. Stay tuned to discover the implications and outcomes of this crucial legal battle.
Facts
- The respondent, RLC, argued that the inferences drawn by the High Court with respect to documentary evidence were incorrect.
- The Court noted that the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a holistic manner.
- RLC contended that the Division Bench erred in law by not recognizing the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court.
- The Court found that the Division Bench did not properly consider the arguments presented by RLC.
- RLC emphasized that the decision of the Division Bench was against the weight of evidence.
- The Court concluded that the order passed by the Division Bench was unsustainable due to these discrepancies.
Also Read: Property Inheritance Dispute: The Legacy of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel
Arguments
- The writ petitioners argue that they meet the qualifications for the post of Elementary School Headmaster and should be considered for promotion based on seniority as per Rule 11 of 2012 Rules.
- They claim that the post of Drawing Teacher was converted to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 9(5) of the Haryana School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012.
- The State contends that the writ petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster as they do not meet the qualifications for appointment to the post of TGT under the 2012 Rules.
- The Single Bench held that C&V Teachers, including the writ petitioners, are deemed converted to TGT Cadre and should be considered for promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmaster.
- The State’s appeal was dismissed as C&V Teachers, once considered part of TGT Cadre, cannot be denied promotion against the allocated quota for TGTs.
- The appellant argues that the 2012 Rules only notionally designate C&V Teachers as TGTs and do not equate the two positions.
- Differences in educational qualifications between C&V Teachers and TGTs under 2012 Rules are highlighted to support the argument that C&V Teachers should not be treated as TGTs.
- The writ petitioners argue they meet the necessary qualifications and should be considered part of the TGT Cadre under the 2012 Rules.
- Two juniors to the writ petitioners have already been promoted as Elementary School Headmasters.
- C&V Teachers converted to TGT should be treated as members of TGT Cadre
- Rule 9(5) of the 2012 Rules applies to the converted teachers
- Support for the reasoning of the High Court provided
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Medical Negligence Compensation
Analysis
- Qualifications for filling up the post of TGT by way of promotion specified in the Rules.
- The post of TGT is a promotion post for C&V Teachers.
- Discussion on whether C&V Teachers are upgraded to the post of TGT.
- Interpretation of Rule 9(5) of the 2012 Rules regarding conversion of C&V Teachers to TGT.
- Clarification that C&V Teachers do not become part of the TGT cadre.
- The purpose of the Rules is to ensure education to primary school students by TGTs rather than C&V Teachers.
- Differentiation between academic qualifications and experience for direct recruitment and other appointments as TGTs.
- Explanation of why C&V Teachers cannot be treated en masse as members of the TGT Cadre.
- The importance of providing opportunity for such teachers to be appointed as TGTs.
- Notion that C&V Teachers are now deemed to be part of the TGT cadre based on the Rules.
- Relevant provisions of the 1998 Rules and the 2012 Rules compared and analyzed.
- Discussion on the repeal of the 1998 Rules and implementation of the 2012 Rules.
- Clarification that the conversion of C&V Teachers to TGT is to govern their service conditions under the 2012 Rules.
- Interpretation serving the cause of education preferred over anomalous results
- Order of High Court violated cumulative reading of 2012 Rules
- Order defeats the cause of primary education guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution
Also Read: Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma vs. Ministry of Defence: OROP Entitlement for Army Postal Service Personnel
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The order passed by the High Court has been set aside.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANDEEP SINGH
Case Number: C.A. No.-004546-004546 / 2019
