High CourtDivision Bench2014-12-09Appeal dismissed

Awadesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Sikkim

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 6778 of 2010

Neutral Citation:[2014] 11 SCR 305

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar
Arun Mishra
Judgment Date: 2014-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Awadesh Kumar Mishra

Respondents

State of Sikkim

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sudhir Kilshreshtha

Counsels for Respondents

• D A. Mariarputham
• Yusuf Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Awadesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Sikkim concerns whether a long-serving Graduate Teacher could be granted an advancement grade under the Sikkim Government Services (Advancement Grade) Rules, 1999, and, specifically, whether such advancement could be pegged to the pay scale of the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. The appellant had ten years of continuous service as a Graduate Teacher and, after time, was placed in the advancement grade (Rs. 7000-225-11500) which corresponds to the post of Post Graduate Teacher. He claimed eligibility for the advancement grade in terms of the pay scale for the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School, arguing that the Schedule to the 1992 Recruitment Rules shows a feeder cadre (Headmasters of Secondary Schools or Post-Graduate Teachers with B.Ed.) from which promotion to Principal is possible, and that his Master’s degree with B.Ed. and seven years’ teaching experience made him eligible. The respondents countered that Rule 6(5) requires advancement grade to be linked to the post for which one is eligible to be promoted under the recruitment rules, not simply to a post with higher pay. They argued that Mishra did not belong to the feeder cadre, nor did he meet the required experience, so he could not be promoted to Principal or granted the higher grade. The Supreme Court, after analyzing Rule 6 and the Recruitment Rules, concluded that the appellant’s eligibility criteria were not met and dismissed the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sikkim Government Services (Advancement Grade) Rules, 1999Rule 6 (5) and general Procedure for grant of advancement grade under Rule 6Education Department (Principals of the Senior Secondary Schools and Headmasters of the Secondary Schools) Recruitment Rules, 1992Schedule appended to the Recruitment Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The solitary contention advanced was that the appellant, having completed ten years of continuous service as a Graduate Teacher, was eligible for advancement grade under Rule 6 of the Sikkim Government Services (Advancement Grade) Rules, 1999, which provides advancement grade on completion of ten years of continuous service, subject to DPC clearance and absence of adverse entries. The appellant relied on Recruitment Rules, 1992 (Education Department) for Senior Secondary School Principals and Headmasters, arguing that his qualifications (Master's with B.Ed. and seven years' teaching experience) placed him in the feeder cadre and made him eligible for promotion to Principal, Senior Secondary School, thus entitling him to grant advancement grade in the Principal's pay scale.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Rule 6(5) ties advancement grade to the post to which one is eligible to be promoted under the relevant recruitment rules. Although the appellant possessed the required qualifications on paper, he did not belong to the feeder cadre nor meet the promotion criteria (per Schedule to the Recruitment Rules), which require either 15 years as Headmaster of a Secondary School or 7 years as a Post-Graduate Teacher with B.Ed. Therefore, he is not eligible for promotion to Principal, Senior Secondary School and cannot be granted advancement grade under Rule 6(5). The judgments cited by the appellant were distinguished as inapplicable due to differences in rules.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy	(2011) 9 SCC 510	Distinguished	The decision deals with advancement grade under different recruitment rules; not applicable to the Sikkim rules involved, so it is distinguished.
Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research	(2012) 12 SCC 666	Distinguished	The judgments relied on by the appellant have terms dissimilar to the Sikkim rules; thus not helpful.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Awadesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Sikkim and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2014] 11 S.C.R. 305 A • # AWADESH KUMAR MISHRA _v._ STATE OF SIKKIM (Civil Appeal No. 6778 of 2010) DECEMBER 09, 2014 B # **[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]** _SeNice Law:_ c· _Sikkim Government Services -(Advancement Grade) Rules, 1999_ - _r. 6(5)_ - _Advancement grade_ - _Grant of_ - _Appellant-graduate teacher on completion of ten years of continuous seNice given advancement grade/scale of the post of post-graduate teacher_ - _Appellant claiming_ D _advancement grade, in terms of the pay scale of the post of_ - _principal, Senior Secondary School Held: Even though the appellant fulfills the educational qualification prescribed for the post of principal, he is not eligible to be promoted as_ E' _Principal as per the relevant recruitment rules to the post of_ - _Principal, Senior Secondary School Appellant does not belong to the feeder cadre, out of which appointments can be made by promotion to the post_ of Principal~ _Appellant does not possess the postulated experience, prescribed for such_ F - _promotion Thus, the appellant does not qualify for being allowed advancement grade, ulr 6(5) of the 1999 Rules in the_ -- _grade of the post of Principal,; Senior Secondary School___ ----- _Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. R._ Santhak~mari. G _Velusamy,_ **2011 (14) SCR 502: (2011) 9 SCC 510;** _Hukum Chand Gupta vs. Director General, Indian Council of_ 305 H 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A _Agricultural Research_ 2012 (8) SCR831: (2012) 12 SCC 666 - referred to. ## Case Law Reference: B 2011 (14) SCR 502 referred to Para 5 2012 (8) SCR 831 referred to Para 5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6778 of 2010. c From the Judgment & Order dated 05.06.2008 of the High Court of Sikkim in Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2006. Sudhir Kilshreshtha for the Appellant. D A. Mariarputham, Yusuf Khan (for Aruna Mathur) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E J.S.KHEHAR, J. 1. The appellant was inducted into the employment of the parent Human Resource Development Department, of the Government of Sikkim, as a Graduate Teacher. On the completion of ten years of continuous service as a Graduate Teacher, he was allowed to draw salary in the F advancement grade/scale of Rs.7000-225-11500, with effect from 22.01.1997. It is not a matter of dispute, that the aforestated scale of Rs. 7000-225-11500, is that of the post of Post Graduate Teacher. ii G 2. The right to be placed in an advancement grade, is provided for to Government employees, under the Sikkim Government Services (Advancement Grade) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the '1999 Rules'). The procedure for grant of advancement grade is delineated in Rule 6 of the 1999 H Rules, which is being extracted hereunder: • A c AWADESH KUMAR MISHRA _v._ STATE OF SIKKIM 307 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) "6. Procedure for grant of advancement grade:- (1) The Government servants up to the level of Deputy Secretary and equivalent shall be granted pay scales of the advancement grade on completion of 10(ten) years of continuous service in a post/grade if they do not get any promotion during that period subject to B (a) clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee; (b)Non-appearance of any adverse entry in their confidential reports for preceding three years prior to consideration for advance grade. Provided that grant of advancement grade under 0 these rules shall not be deemed to be promotion to the higher grade nor the employee shall have right to claim for employee shall have right to claim for promotion unless vacancy in such higher gradi:i exists and is otherwise eligible to be considered for promotion to such higher grade. E (2) Grant of advancement grade would not involve any change in the designation of the employee concerned. (3) Grant of advancement grade of pay .shall be once in a particular post/grade. F (4) In cases where the pre-revised scales have been clubbed and where a Government servant has reached the higher scale in pre-revised scale of pay by way of advancement grade prior to 1.1.1996 shall be given higher scale in the revised pay of scale on pay fixation i.e. corresponding advancement scale in the revised pay of scale. G H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. • A (5) The corresponding pay scale of advancement grade shall not be less than the pay scale prescribed for the post to which Government is eligible to be promoted as per the relevant recruitment rules." B (emphasis is ours) I 3. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that during his tenure as Graduate Teacher, the appellant did not earn a single promotion, and as c such, became eligible for being considered for the grant of advancement grade. According to-the learned counsel, advancement grade, is to be determined with reference to the post for which the concerned employee is eligible. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned counsel D for the appellant placed reliance on the Education Department (Principals of the Senior Secondary Schools and Headmasters of the Secondary Schools) Recruitment rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules). The afore-stated E Recruitment Rules, provide for the methods of recrL1itment to the post of Principals, Senior Secondary Schools, as also, the post of Headmasters/Headmistress, Secondary Schools. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was eligible for the post of Principal, Senior F Secondary School, and as such, should have been granted advancement grade in the grade/scale provided for the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the Schedule appended G to the. 'Recruitment Rules' with reference to the post of Principal, Seni~r Secondary School. A relevant extract of the aforesaid Schedule has been reproduced hereunder: H ## AWADESH KUMAR MISHRA _v._ STATE OF SIKKIM 309 • [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) |~~**SCHEDULE**~~ Name Educational& ofpost other qualification required for direct recruitment experience/ training/length ofservice in the lower post; {whether age and education qualification prescribed for the direct recruitment will apply in the case ofpromotion) 1 8|~~**SCHEDULE**~~ Name Educational& ofpost other qualification required for direct recruitment experience/ training/length ofservice in the lower post; {whether age and education qualification prescribed for the direct recruitment will apply in the case ofpromotion) 1 8|~~**SCHEDULE**~~ Educational&In case If aDPC other of exists qualification recruit- whatis required for ment its promotion by compos including promotion ition /deputation /transfer grade the lower post; from which promotion/ deputation transfer to be made|~~**SCHEDULE**~~ Educational&In case If aDPC other of exists qualification recruit- whatis required for ment its promotion by compos including promotion ition /deputation /transfer grade the lower post; from which promotion/ deputation transfer to be made|~~**SCHEDULE**~~ Educational&In case If aDPC other of exists qualification recruit- whatis required for ment its promotion by compos including promotion ition /deputation /transfer grade the lower post; from which promotion/ deputation transfer to be made| |---|---|---|---|---| ||8|9|11|12| |Principal a) Graduate Sr. Sec. with B.Ed. Schools &15 years administrative teaching experience (b) Master's Degree with B.Ed./M.Ed. With 7 years teaching experience||As at column 8|(a) Head- master ofSec. Schools with 15 years service (b) PGT with B.Ed. With 7 years regular service|As may be cons!- ituted by the Govt. from time to time by separatE notifica- tion| 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. • A Relying on the qualifications indicated in Column 8 and 9 of the Recruitment Rules, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant possessed Master Degree with B.Ed. with 7 years' teaching experience, and as such, was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary B School, on the date from which he was placed in the advancement grade. In the above view of the matter, the appellant claims the grant of advancement grade, in terms of the pay scale of the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. C C 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the solitary contention advanced at the behest of the appellant, The validity of the claim of the appellant would be determined with reference to Rule 6 of the '1999 Rules', which delineate the procedure for grant of advancement grade. Rule 6(5) provides, D that advancement grade would be granted with reference to the post, to which a government employee " ... is eligible to be promoted as per the relevant recruitment rules". The question to be determined is, whether the appellant was/is eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School· under the Recruitment Rules? If the answer to the above, is in E the affirmative, his claim would be justified. Despite the fact, that appellant fulfills the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School, we are satisfied, that it would not be correct to conclude, that he" ... is F eligible to be promoted as Principal, Senior Secondary School, as per the relevant recruitment rules". We say so because, as per the Schedule appended to the Recruitment Rules, the appellant dces not belong to the feeder cadre, out of which appointments can be made by promotion.to the post of· G Principals, Senior Secondary Schools.The appellant.does not possess the postulated experience, prescribed for such promotion in the Schedule appended to the Recruitment Rules. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that Column 11 of the Schedule provides, that promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School, can be made from H AWADESH KUMAR MISHRA _v._ STATE OF SIKKIM 311 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) • Headmasters of Secondary Schools with 15 years service, and also from Post-Graduate Teachers with B.Ed.,and 7 years regular service. The appellant has never held the post of Headmaster,or the post of Post Graduate Teacher, nor does he possess the experience of service postulated (15 years as Head Master of a Secondary School, or 7 years as Post Graduate Teacher). The appellant therefore, cannot be considered to be " ... eligible to be promoted as per the relevant recruitment rules" to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. Thus viewed, we are satisfied that the appellant does not qualify for being allowed advancement grade, under Rule 6(5) of the 1999 Rules in the grade of the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. A B C 5. It would be relevant to mention, that the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments rendered by o this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy, (2011) 9 SCC 510, and Hukum Chand Gupta vs. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (2012) 12 SCC 666. The provisions and the terms and conditions for grant of advancement grade in the judgments E relied on being dissimiliar to the rules which are prevalent for eligibility for grant of advancement grade in the case in hand, we are of the considered view, that none of the aforesaid judgments can be of any assistance to the appellant, for the claim raised. F 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.