State Of Punjab And Anr vs Teja Singh And Ors
- SCC(2007) 3 SCC 153
- Neutral2007 INSC 58
- AIRAIR 2007 SC Supp 409
- SCR[2007] 1 SCR 1105
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An employee promoted on a provisional basis to a higher post does not lose their lien on the lower post from which they were promoted, and therefore cannot be denied subsequent promotion to a further higher post on the ground that they held the lower post at the time the promotion rules came into force. Where an employee has been provisionally promoted to a post before new promotion rules come into force, and those rules do not expressly require the employee to exercise an option to choose between posts or expressly stipulate loss of lien as a consequence of such promotion, the employee cannot be denied the benefit of further promotion to a higher post merely because the new rules were not in force at the time of the earlier provisional promotion. Rules governing promotion must be construed and applied in a reasonable and pragmatic manner, and their application cannot produce absurd results such as denying an employee a promotion they would have been entitled to but for the timing of rule changes.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The State of Punjab is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10.7.2000 in LPA No. 800/2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the LPA arising from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court in writ petitions filed by the respondents herein, opining that their cases should be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, Grade II.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondents were appointed as Masters in the Education Department of the State of Punjab. As they possessed Master degree, they were promoted to the post of Lecturer.
In or about 1974, they were temporarily posted as headmasters. A sample copy of the order of such posting is in the following terms :
"The following Masters/Lecturers are hereby provisionally
posted at their own pay and grade on the post of Headmasters. (P.E.S. III) Non Gazetted Men Branch. These postings are purely temporary and all are subject to the conditions noted below :
xxx xxx xxx
3. They continued to work on the post of Headmaster till about 1978. However, rules were framed in terms whereof the posts of Principal, Grade II were to be filled up by way of promotion as also by direct recruit in the ratio of 75 : 25.
4. It is stated that the State had issued a circular on or about 24th January, 1977 laying down the ratio of 60 : 40 for filling up the posts of Headmaster/Lecturer. The respondents were denied the promotion to the post of Principal, Grade II by an order dated 15.7.1995, inter alia on the premise that they, having been promoted to the post of Headmaster, lost their lien on the post of Lecturer.
5. Writ petitions filed by the respondents have been allowed as noticed hereinbefore. Letter Patent Appeals filed by the State of Punjab thereagainst were dismissed.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of the rules aforementioned the High Court could not have passed the impugned judgment.
7. It is not in dispute that similar question came up for consideration before Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2441/1982 and Civil Writ Petition No. 4918/1996, wherein a similar contention raised by the State had been rejected.
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had followed the aforementioned decision. We do not find any reason to differ therewith. Respondents were promoted on provisional basis. It cannot, therefore, be said that they lost their lien. Even the Cadre Controlling Authority could not have changed their cadre without their consent. Even otherwise having regard to the fact that they were provisionally promoted to the post of Principal long before the rules came into force, in absence of any express provision contained therein or any option sought for from the respondents, they could not have been denied the benefit of promotion to the post of Principal, Grade II. If such a contention is upheld, in our opinion, the same would result in an absurdity. All rules as is well known must be considered in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. The respondents having been promoted to the post of Headmaster, which was permissible at the relevant time, cannot be denied the benefit of promotion to the post of Principal, Grade II, although they held the post of Lecturer. Even otherwise, in our opinion, denial of said benefit to the respondents would be unjust in law. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. 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