POONAM VERMA Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD, DEHRADUN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third round of litigation by the peti­tioner with regard to her promotion on the post of Principal. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that there is a Cantonment Board, Dehradun which has been constituted under the provision of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and has established an educational institution known as Saheed Mekh Bahadur Gurung Cantt., Girls Inter College in Garhri Cantt, in the District of Dehradun which was impairing education up to High School and was up­graded to an Inter College in the year 1995, pursuant to which, one post of Principal was created by an order of the G.O.C. General Command in the year 1997. The service conditions of the employees of the institution are governed by the provisions of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1937) which have been framed u/S 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinaf­ter referred to as the Act of 1924).

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer (Civics) in the institution on 13/10/1997 and was placed on proba­tion for a period of two years and, upon completion of the said period, the petitioner is working continuously on the said post in a substantive capacity. The respondent No.4, who is the present Principal of the institution, was appointed on the post of Junior Lecturer in English on 1st July, 1999 and, consequently, in that capacity, the petitioner is admittedly senior to the re­spondent No.4 by virtue of the fact that the petitioner was appointed at earlier point of time.

(3.) IT transpires that the Cantonment Board declined to accept the Resolution of the School Committee, in so far as it related to the post of Principal to be clas­sified as a direct recruitment post and con­tended that the post of Principal would be a promotional post. Accordingly, treating the post of Principal to be a promotional post, a resolution dated 24th January, 2002 was passed resolving to promote respond­ent No.4 as the Principal of the institu­tion. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, filed writ petition No.286 (S/B) of 2002. The petitioner con­tended that under the Rules, the promo­tion was to be made on the basis of sen­iority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The respondents contended that respond­ent" No.4 had not been regularly promoted but was only asked to officiate on the post of Principal and, in view of such statement being made, the writ petition of the peti­tioner was disposed of by an order dated 30th October, 2002 directing the respond­ents to hold a regular selection on the post of Principal in accordance with the Rules. The Court further directed that till the hold­ing of regular selection, the respondent No.4 would be allowed to continue to officiate on the post of Principal.