CHANDER BHAN SHARMA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner claims superior seniority over respondents 2 to 57, challenges the promotion of some of the respondents and prays for certain consequential declarations in relation to revision of seniority and the promotions.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner joined the Directorate of Education as Trained Graduate Teacher on January 6, 1956. He was later confirmed in that grade. By order No. 968 of October 8, 1959-(Annexure 2) the Director of Education made a number of appointments and postings. This order is in two parts. By the first part of the order seven persons, including respondents 3 to 5, were appointed to the post of Post Graduate Teachers in the "direct recruitment quota" in the scale of Rs. 200-400 in a "temporary capacity" until further orders and were posted to different schools shown against their names. By the second part of the order a number of persons, including the petitioner and respondent No. 2, were "provisionally appointed to officiate as Post Graduate Teachers" in the scale of Rs. 200-400 with effect from October 12, 1959 for a period of three months or till the candidates selected by the Central Staff Selection Board on regular basis became available and were posted to the various schools. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 23 in the list of the appointees. There is, however, an endorsement against his name to the effect that he was transferred and posted against "a vacant post of Post Graduate Teacher" and will "draw his pay in the scale of Rs. 120-300 against that post until further orders". It is a common case of the parties that all these appointments were effective from October 12, 1959. Subsequently by an office order No. 62P. of Octaber 23 1959 (Annexure 3) the petitioner and certain others were "provisionally appointed to officiate as Post Graduate Teachers" in the scale of Rs. 200-400 with immediate effect for a period of three months or till the candidates selected by the Central Staff Selection Board on regular basis becomes available. It was further stated that the appointment was "purely temporary" and "would confer no right whatsoever upon the promotees for appointment as Post Graduate Teachers". Against the name of the petitioner it is mentioned that he was "allowed the scale of Post Graduate Teacher in Rs. 200-400 w.e.f. the date of his posting against the post of P.G.T.", reference apparently being to October 12, 1959. The petitioner has since been working in the P.G.T. grade and was confirmed alongwith other P.G.T. teachers by an order of May 13, 1966, with retrospective effect from September 1, 19(13. The confirmation order was made apparently as a sequel to the promulgation of the Delhi Administration (Seniority) Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules of 1965). In the said confirmation order (Annexure 6) the date of appointment of the petitioner is shown as October 12, 1959.

(3.) The first seniority list relating to Post Graduate Teachers was issued on April 12, 1966. Relevant extracts from this list are Annexure 5 to the petition. In this list the petitioner was shown at serial No. 146 and his date of appointment in the grade is shown as 12-10-59. By an order of May 12, 1970 (Annexure 1) the Additional Secretary (Edu- cation). Delhi Administration, Delhi promoted and appointed respondents 2 to 6 as Vice-Principals of various schools. Aggrieved by this appointment the petitioner filed the present petition on May 26, 1970 challenging the legality of the order on the ground that it was violative of the petitioner's fundamental right in the matter of employment. During the pendency of the petition respondent No. 1 issued three further orders of June 30, 1970, July 3, 1970 and July 7, 1970 (Annexurcs 1 A, 1A1 and 1A2) promoting respondents 2 to 9 to the posts of Principals and respondents 7 to 10 as Vice Principals. These promotions were sought to be justified on behalf of the Administration on the basis of a seniority list of July 20, 1970 and it was alleged that the first list was not in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, had to be revised. In the revised list the petitioner was shown at serial No. 219. The list further purported to convey that the petitioner had been appointed on an ad hoc basis to the P.G.T. grade on October 12, 1959 and that the appointment was regularised on December 17, 1970. On account of these subsequent events the petitioner sought leave for and was allowed to amend the petition and the first amended petition was filed on July 14, 1971. In the return filed on behalf of the Administration it was disclosed that there was a tentative seniority list of October 20, 1971, which had been circulated to elicit objections. At the hearing of the petition it was pointed out that the tentative list had since been finalised and the Court allowed the final list to be brought on record. In the tentative list as well as in the final list, which is of April 12, 1972. petitioner was shown at seriol No. 180. The petitioner sought leave to further amend the petition and the leave being allowed the second amended petition was filed by the petitioner in September, 1972. The petitioner prays for a declaration that the petitioner is, on account of a variety of reasons, entitled to be placed between serial No. 118 and 119 in the list and in the alternative between serial No. 125 and 126 and seeks to challenge the promotion and appointment of respondents 2 to 10 to the posts of Vice Principals and Principals which the petitioner characterised as being based on improper determination of seniority and by his consequential supersession. The petitioner also prays for a mandamus requiring the Administration to promote the petitioner to the post of Vice Principal with retrospective effect from May 12, 1970 and as Principal with retrospective effect from June 30. 1970 and to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, having since been promoted the relief claimed is primarily intended to obtain monetary advantage.