GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Gurcharan Singh in S.S. Master in Government Senior Secondary School. By virtue of the present writ petition, he seeks a mandamus to be issued to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, to consider his claim for promotion as Lecturer in Punjabi w.e.f. the date respondent No. 3 had been promoted.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Punjabi teacher on ad hoc basis on 25.7.1979. His services were regularised from 15.9.1982. He was promoted -as S.S. Master on 28.2.1991. 50% of the posts of Lecturers in Senior Secondary Schools are to be filled up by way of promotion and 50% posts are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer were that a candidate should have 50% marks in post -graduation. Respondent No. 3 is stated to have been appointed as Drawing Teacher on 11.2.1985 and promoted as Lecturer on 20.4.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is senior to respondent No. 3 but his claim for promotion has not been considered. He is duly qualified to the appointed as a Lecturer. The reason for not appointing the peti - tioner as a Lecturer recorded is that a seniority list has been drawn of Masters/Mistresses and C&V teachers on the basis of their dates of appointments. It is contended that in C&V Category, there are teachers in different scales. The said policy decision is stated to be arbitrary and it is claimed that since the petitioner was in a higher scale, he should be given a priority right.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the petition as such has been contested. It has been pointed out that, as per policy decision, promotion against the post of Lecturer is to be made from Masters and Classical & Vernacular teachers on the basis of their joint seniority. The petitioner has been promoted as S.S. Master on 28.2.1991. He ceased to be a member of C&V Cadre and as such he is to be considered for the post of Lecturer in Punjabi on the basis of seniority from the cadre of Masters and not from the cadre of C&V i.e. Punjabi teacher. It is asserted that no person junior to the petitioner has since been promoted.