CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION versus SH. SUMESH KUMAR ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 24-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 
v. 
SH. SUMESH KUMAR ETC. 
OCTOBER 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Se!Vice Law : 
Chandigarh Education Se1vice (School Cadre) Group 'C' Recmitment 
C Rules, 1991-Rule 4---Promotion-fo the post of Master/Mistress 
(TGT)-Wammted only from amongst PST teachers and not from Classical 
and Vemacular teachers---PST teacher a feeder category for promotion to the 
post of classical and vernacular teaclzer-Held, Classical and Vemacular 
teacher cannot be deban·ed from being considered for promotion to the post 
D of master/mistress (TGT). Claim that PST teacher alone to be considered for 
promotion to the post of master/mistress and not a classical and vernacular 
teacher-Post of Classical and vernacular teacher higher to the post of PST 
teachel'-Held, such an interp~etation of mle will not only cause great injus-
tice, but will create absurdity by giving unwarranted advantage to the incum-
bents of the lower post over the incumbents of the higher post. 
E 
The respondents were promoted to the post of masters/mistresses 
(TGTs), from the post of Classical and Vernacular teachers. Appellant 
issued notice to them, to the effect that the above promotion was contrary 
to recruitment rules, as the rules did not provide for the said promotion 
F from amongst Classical and Vernacular teacher. 
Respondents challenged the notice of the appellant in Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal. 1be Tribunal interpreting the recruitment rules, 
held that the promotion in question, was not contrary to statutory rules 
G and quashed the notice. 
In appeal to this Court, the respondents contended that since PST 
teachers being an eligibk category for promotion to the post of Classical 
& Vernacular teachers, if.would be unsound to construe that promotion 
to the post of master/mistress can be made only from amongst the PST 
I 
. 
II teachers. 
· 
, 
712 
( 
' ' 
I 
.... 
CHANDIGARHADMN. v. SUMESH KR. [PATIANAIK,J.] 
713 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The PST teacher being feeder category for promotion to 
the post of Classical and Vernacular teachers under the Recruitment 
Rules, the said Classical and Vernacular teacher cannot be debarred from 
being considered for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress (TGTs). 
[718-C] 
1.2. The interpretation that while PST teachers can be appointed as 
Classical and Vernacular teachers on promotion, a Classical and Ver-
nacular teacher would be debarred from being considered for promotion 
A 
B 
for the post of the Master whereas a PST teacher would alone be con-
sidered for promotion to the post of Master, will not only cause great C 
injustice but will create absurdity by giving unwarranted advantage to the 
incumbents of the highe1· post of a classical teacher, and such an inter-
pretation cannot be sustained in law. [718-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13239-41 D 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 138 CH of 1995. 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellant. 
Gopal Mahajan and P.N. Puri for the Respondents. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
These Appeals by Special Leave are directed against different orders 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh cancelling the notices 
issued by the appellant to the respondents and further directing the appel-
lant not to revert the respondents from the promoted post. But the ques-
E 
F 
tion of law involved being one and the same they were heard together and G 
are being disposed of by the common judgment. The short question that 
arises for consideration is whether promotions of these respondents on 
different dates in the year 1993 to the posts of Masters/Mistress (TGTs) is 
contrary to the Statutory Recruitment Rules framed by the Government of , 
India, Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of powers conferred by proviso 
under Article 309 of the Constitution called the Chandigaih Education H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A Service (School Cadre) Group 'C' Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter 
referred 'to as "The Recruitment Rules"). 
We will consider the facts in one case for deciding the point in issue, 
namely, in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 11122 of 
B 
1996 which is directed against the order of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 12.10.1995 in O.A. No. 138/CH/95. In the said 
cas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.