PYARELAL PREMI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PRIMARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Senior Teacher in English for Multi -purpose and Higher Secondary Schools, by order Ex. 3 dated July 22, 1957. along with several others. It was an appointment on one year's probation. He was thereafter appointed by promotion as Head Master of High Schoo1/Deputy Inspector of Schools by order Ex. 4 dated June 17, 1960 He continued to serve as Head Master Junior Higher Secondary School, or a Deputy Inspector of Schools, until 1966, when he proceeded on leave to Agra for the purpose of obtaining the degree of Master of Education. While he was in Agra in June 1967, after completing the M.Ed. course, he received telegraphic order Ex 7 dated June 25, 1967, from the Directorate of Education, by which he was informed that he had been promoted and posted' as Head Master. Higher Secondary School, Dabri, and should join there on the forenoon of July 1. That telegraphic order was confirmed by post, and the Additional Director of Primary and Secondary Education issued formal order Ex. 9 dated June 26, 1967, regarding the petitioner's appointment as Head Master of the Higher Secondary School at Dabri. It was, however, stated in the order that the appointment was for a period of six months or 'till a candidate selected by the D P.C. joins' whichever was earlier. It was further stated that the promotion had been granted temporarily on the basis of seniority, in pursuance of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Routes'. It appears that the petitioner wrote back in reply on June 19, 1967, and the Additional Director issued order Ex. 10, dated June 27, 1967 cancelling his appointment as Head Master, Dabri, The petitioner felt aggrieved and made a representation (Ex 12) on August 6, 1967, and pressed it by his reminder Ex 14 dated October 1, 1967. The Additional Director then sent memorandum Ex. 15, dated November 4, 1967, to the petitioner, informing him that his promotion was not possible because he had not been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Head Master Higher Secondary Schoo1/ BSTC Training School. The petitioner could not therefore secure his promotion and has filed the present writ petition to challenge the cancellation of the aforesaid order Ex 9 dated June 26, 1967 by the order dated June 27, 1967, referred to above. A number of grounds have been taken in the petition but I shall refer to those of the grounds which have been selected by the petitioner's learned Counsel for my consideration.

(2.) IT may be mentioned that the State of Rajasthan and the Director of Education have traversed the petitioner's claim altogether, and I shall refer to these portions of their joint reply which bear on the controversy before me. It may be mentioned at the outset, however, that although the petitioner challenged the vires of the Rule 25A of the Rules in the writ petition, his learned Counsel has expressly stated that he would not like to press that point at all.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a reply stating that order Ex. 9 was cancelled on the very next day as the petitioner had been busy with the course of Master of Education and was on leave and the Department was not certain about the resumption of duties by him on July 1, 1967. This does not appear to be a satisfactory reason for cancelling order Ex. 9 but then paragraph 13 of the reply is much more important and has a direct bearing on the question of the justification for the cancellation of order Ex. 9. In that paragraph the respondents have stated that after the issue of telegram Ex 7 dated June 26, 1937, regarding the petitioner's ad -hoc or officiating promotion the Department was informed that the Departmental Promotion Committee had met in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules for the purpose of making regular appointments by promotion to the posts of Head Master of the Higher Secondary Schools, and that as the petitioner was found by that Committee to be unsuitable, it was not possible to continue him on any ad hoc or officiating promotion under the aforesaid order dated June 26, 1967 Learned Deputy Government Advocate has placed before the Court the record relating to the deliberations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which shows that the Committee met on May 29, 1967, May 30, 1967 and JUNE 29, 1967 It examined the case of the petitioner for promotion, but found him unsuitable. As the Department learnt about the soon after the issue of telegram Ex. 7 dated June 26, 1967 and order Ex 9 dated June 26, 1967, it cannot be blamed if it cancelled the petitioner's temporary promotion and rejected his representation against that cancellation. As a matter of fact the petitioner's temporary promotion under order Ex 9 was clearly fortuitous and cannot form the basis of any claim for relief by this Court.