RANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was inducted into the service of the Education Department, Punjab, as a Lecturer in Biology in 1972 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer in the Punjab Educational Service (Class II) in 1997. The posts of District Education Officers (Secondary Education/Elementary Education), Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Principal, Secondary Schools, Assistant Director, Evaluation Officer, Subject Matter Expert (State Council of Education Research and Training), Survey Officer, Deputy Circle Education Officer, Deputy District Education Officer, District Science Supervisor, Senior Lecturer, Senior Guidance Counsellor, Agricultural Advisor, Coordinator (Population Education), Officer on Special Duty (Works and Planning), Officer on Special Duty (Scholarship) and Coordinator, are common cadre posts, included in the Punjab Educational Service (School and Inspection) Group A Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2004 Rules'). Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules delineates the method of appointment, qualifications and experience for posts governed by the 2004 Rules. In terms of rule 5 of the 2004 Rules, details have been depicted in Appendix 'B' thereof. A perusal of Appendix 'B' reveals that all the posts in the common cadre, depicted at serial No. 3 of Appendix 'B', are to be filled up 100 percent by promotion. The qualifications and experience for appointment by promotion are depicted in column 6 of Appendix 'B'. The same is relevant for the present controversy and is, accordingly, being extracted hereunder :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically placed reliance on the Note in column 6, extracted hereinabove, to assert that the norms of official propriety require that "...only the senior-most officer, holding any of the post mentioned under column 2, shall be posted as District Education Officer..."

(3.) It would be pertinent to mention that the common cadre, referred to above, incorporates the posts depicted in column 2. Undoubtedly, when the petitioner came to be promoted as Senior Lecturer in 1997, she became a member of the aforesaid cadre and in terms of her seniority in the said common cadre, she claims posting, as a matter of official propriety, against the post of District Education Officer. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has handed over to us a seniority list, wherein the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 43. It is not a mater of dispute that the cadre of District Education Officers (Secondary Education/Elementary Education) comprises of 40 posts. However, in the seniority list, handed over to us in Court today, there are a number of persons above the petitioner who are holding higher posts after having been promoted either to the posts of the rank and status of Director of Public Instructions (Schools), or of the rank and status of Deputy Director. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that as a matter of fact there are only 38 incumbents in the said common cadre holding the posts of District Education Officer. It is, therefore, apparent that at least 2 posts of District Education Officer are available as vacant.