Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Delhi Administration (Now Govt. Of N.C.T. Delhi) Through The vs Nand Lal Pant & Anr.

Supreme Court7 July 1997K. Ramaswamy · D.P.Wadhwa

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an employee has officiated in a higher post for an extended period without a regular channel of promotion existing from his substantive cadre to that post, and a post reserved for a scheduled caste candidate has been filled by a member of the scheduled castes, the employee is not entitled to promotion as of right; however, the employer may be directed to create a supernumerary post in the higher grade to allow the employee to continue until retirement, drawing the pay scale of the higher post from the date of creation of such supernumerary post. Such creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate an employee who has long officiated in a higher post does not constitute a precedent, and no employee may claim the right to bypass the regular promotion channel merely by virtue of possessing the requisite qualification or having officiated in a higher post.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER: DELHI ADMINISTRATION (NOW GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI) THROUGH THE

Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAND LAL PANT & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P.WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

Nand Lal Pant, the first respondent was appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on September 28, 1974 in the pay scale of Rs.250-550/-. He was confirmed in that post. The post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) fell vacant after retirement of one S.N. Sastri. Since the first respondent had the qualification of Sanskrit, he was asked to officiate in the said post of Graduation Teacher (Sanskrit). He made representations from time to time for his promotion to the said post. Since it was rejected on the ground that there was no channel of promotion from the cadre of TGT to the cadre of PGT, Sanskrit. Consequently, he filed Writ Petition No.3794/93 in the High Court. The Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment dated July 31, 1996 allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to promote him w.e f. 1986 with all consequential benefits. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

It is now for the first time that stand has been taken by the Petitioner (respondent in the writ petition) by letter dated December 22, 1992 the School was informed that the Deputy Director (East) was "pleased to accord the clearance for P.G.T. (Sanskrit) reserved for Scheduled Caste candidateds". Pursuant to that it would appear that one Rajbir Singh belonging to Secheduled Castes was appointed w.e.f. September 30, 1993 and eversince he was working in the said post. As per the recruitment Rules, there is no direct channel of promotion from TGT (General) to PGT (Sanskrit). As a consequence, the first respondent as of right is not entitled to the promotion as PGT (Sanskrit), that too in a post reserved for Scheduled Castes. But since the first respondent has been working since 1986 in PGT (Sanskrit) from June, 1986 when the post fell vacant, the facts and circumstances, we think that the appellants have to be directed to create a supernumerary post of PGT (Sanskrit) and allow the first respondent to continue in that post till he retires. That post may be be created in any school or directorate as the case may be. He would be entitled to the scale of pay of PGT (Sanskrit) from the date of the creation of the post. This direction to adjust him by creation of supernumerary post and to permit the first respondent to continue in that post should not be treated as a precedent in any other case. No one is entitled to jump the regular channel merely on the basis of by qualification acquired or the basis of having officiated in a higher post.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free