KAMLA SHARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER AGRA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has claimed relief for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 16 -10 -1976 setting aside the Petitioner's promotion and appointment as a teacher in LT grade.

(2.) MUNICIPAL Board, Vrindaban, runs a Higher Secondary Institution for girls. The Petitioner and Smt. Namita Chatterji, Respondent No. 3, both were employed as Assistant Teachers in CT grade in the institution. On 9 -12 -1972 Brij Behari Lal Sharma, Vice President of the Board, who was acting President, passed an order promoting Smt. Namita Chatterji to LT grade in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Sudesh Arora. The Petitioner, made a representation to the President of the Board on 11 -8 -73 protesting against the promotion of Smt. Namita Chatterji to LT Grade on the ground that she was qualified while Smt. Namita Chatterji was not qualified for promotion to LT Grade. The President by his order dated 3 -10 -1973 held that Smt. Namita Chatterji was not qualified for LT Grade as he was not a trained teacher for teaching Hindi to High School classes. He reverted Smt. Namita Chatterji to her substantive post of Assistant Teacher in CT Grade and promoted the Petitioner to LT Grade with effect from 1 -10 -73. Smt. Namita Chatterji filed appeal against that order. The Commissioner, by his order dated 16th October 1976, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the President of the Board and restored the order of the promotion of Smt. Namita Chatterji to LT Grade. Aggrieved the Petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner by means of this petition.

(3.) IT appears that the question of jurisdiction was raised before the Commissioner, whereupon he had referred the matter to the State Government for decision. The State Government, by its letter dated 16 -7 -1975, informed the Commissioner that under Rule 3(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Servants Appeals Rules, 1967, the Commissioner was empowered to hear and decide the appeal. In pursuance of that advice the Commissioner heard and decided the appeal. We have examined the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Servants Appeal Rules, 1967. Rule 3(ii) confers jurisdiction on the Commissioner of the Division to hear appeal against an order of punishment passed against an employee of Municipal Board. But Rule 1(3) lays down that these rules shall apply to all servants of the Board in Uttar Pradesh except the servants appointed to the educational establishments of the Board. Thus the Rule itself makes an exception in case of servants employed in an educational establishment of a Municipal Board. These rules do not apply to those employed in educational establishment of the Municipal Board.