BIMLA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Bimla Rani was appointed as JBT teacher on 25.4.1968 in Education Department of State of Haryana. In June, 1980, she passed Shastri examination from Punjab University in Sanskrit with Honours, after seeking prior permission from the respondents. Respondents issued policy dated 3.6.1977 Annexure P/1 for promoting JBT teachers to C and V cadre against the posts of Hindi/Punjabi/Sanskrit teacher after the teacher acquired qualification of Prabhakar/Giani/Shastri. The promotions were restricted to 25% of the total posts. Pursuant to the said policy, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sanskrit teacher on adhoc basis for four months vide order dated 22.9.1981 Annexure P/2. According to the written statement, the said period was extended by another four months till May, 1982. Thereafter, promotion period of the petitioner was not extended according to written statement. Grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that in view of policy Annexure P/1, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Sanskrit teacher. Another grievance of the petitioner is that she continuously worked as Sanskrit teacher since after her promotion vide order Annexure P/2 and therefore, she is entitled to salary for the said period in the grade of Sanskrit teacher (Master's grade).

(2.) THE respondents pleaded that after her promotion was withdrawn with effect from 23.5.1982, she was posted as JBT teacher against vacant post of Sanskrit teacher because there was no vacant post of JBT teacher in that school at that time. It was also pleaded that petitioner has since been promoted as Head Teacher (Primary Department) with effect from 17.8.1990 which carries grade equal to Master's grade. It was also pleaded that policy Annexure P/1 was not implemented due to some silent or unclear points therein. Instructions dated 28.11.1984 Annexure R/3 were issued for not implementing policy Annexure P/1. Other averments of the petitioner were controverted.

(3.) IN so far as claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sanskrit teacher on regular basis in view of policy Annexure P/1 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted because it is own pleaded case of the petitioner in the writ petition itself that policy Annexure P/1 was never implemented. Respondents have also pleaded that policy Annexure P/1 could not be implemented due to some unclear points and accordingly, vide letter dated 28.11.1984 Annexure R/3, it was directed that promotions on the basis of policy Annexure P/1 be not made till further orders. Since policy Annexure P/1 was not implemented at all, the petitioner cannot be singled out for promotion on the basis of said policy. Even otherwise, mere framing policy may not confer right on an employee to seek benefit thereof by way of writ of mandamus. Policy Annexure P/1 cannot be said to have conferred any legally enforceable right on the petitioner to seek promotion by writ of mandamus.