SNEHLATA JAIN Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD, SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they were appointed as Teachers in the Middle School, promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the High School but the order of promotion was cancelled and the petitioners were reverted without any rhyme or reason. It is contended that there was a separate writ petition filed by one Smt. Babita Otwani challenging the promotion of one Shri R.S. Dubey and since there was an appeal pending before the competent authority, a submission was made in the said writ petition that the appeal may be decided in accordance to law. Consequently, while deciding the appeal of the said person, certain facts were noted and after six years of promotion of the petitioners, an order was issued reverting them to the post on which initially they were appointed, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Simply a show cause notice was given and only on the basis of such a show cause notice, the order impugned was not required to be issued. It is contended that the action taken by the respondents in this respect was per se illegal and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The petitioners are entitled to the relief of promotion as was granted to them.

(2.) Refuting the allegations made by the petitioners, returns have been filed. It is contended that there is only one cadre post of Lower Division Teacher and in the said cadre, appointments are made in the Primary School as well as the Middle School. The services in the Cantonment Board are governed by the rules known as The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 (herein after referred to 'Rules'). It is contended that said rules are made in exercise of powers under Section 280 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and, thus, the rules are having the force of law. It is further contended that from the post of Lower Division Teacher, promotion is to be made on the post of Upper Division Teacher. The promotion is to be made strictly in order of seniority and since there were several senior teachers than the petitioners, who were not considered and were not granted promotion, the grievance was raised before the competent authority of the Cantonment Board and after taking note of such fact, specially when the matter was remitted back by this Court to consider the appeal of one of the aggrieved person, all such facts were examined and it was found that as many as 24 persons senior to the petitioners were left and, therefore, such a promotion of the petitioners was not to be upheld. It is contended that the petitioners were granted an opportunity of hearing and thereafter the order impugned was passed. The respondents No.4 and 5 have also filed the identical return and have contended that since they were senior to the petitioners but were not considered and granted promotion, valuable right available to the said persons was denied. They represented before the competent authority and since their representation was considered, appropriate orders were passed, it cannot be said that the order impugned is bad in law. It is contended that the respondents No.4 and 5 were appointed much before the initial appointment of the petitioners and, therefore, their valuable right of consideration for promotion should not have been denied in such illegal manner. It is, thus, contended that the order impugned is rightly passed and no wrong has been committed by the official respondents.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, examined the record minutely and perused the rules.