STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. TEJA SINGH AND ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-01-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and Anr.

Respondents

Teja Singh
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• D.P. Singh
• Shashank Moona
• Arun K. Sinha

Counsels for Respondents

• Manoj Swarup
• Atulesh Kr. Anant
• S.C. Paul
• Roopa Paul
• Mohinder Singh
• Rekha Pandey
• Subhash Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

The State of Punjab challenged a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that respondents who were initially Masters and promoted to Lecturers, and who were pro tem posted as Headmasters, should be considered for promotion to Principal, Grade II. The core factual sequence is undisputed: the respondents, qualified with a Master’s degree, were promoted to Lecturers and temporarily posted as Headmasters beginning in 1974 on their own pay. Subsequently, rules framed to fill Principal, Grade II posts by promotion (75:25 ratio) and a 1977 circular prescribing a 60:40 ratio for Headmaster/Lecturer postings came into play. In 1995, the State denied promotion to Principal, Grade II on the ground that promotion to Headmaster had made them lose their lien on the Lecturer post. The respondents challenged this by filing writ petitions; the High Court granted relief, and the State’s Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that respondents were promoted on a provisional basis and, therefore, had not lost their lien; the Cadre Controlling Authority could not alter their cadre without consent. It emphasized that adopting a strictly rigid application of the rules would lead to absurd results, and that rules must be applied in a reasonable, pragmatic manner. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the respondents were entitled to the benefit of promotion to Principal, Grade II. The decision underscores that provisional postings do not automatically terminate lien and that promotion benefits should not be denied absent express provisions or consent.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State submitted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to overturn the interpretation of rules and that respondents, by being posted as Headmasters, had forfeited their lien on the Lecturer post; the cadre could be reorganized under the rules, and without express provision or consent, denying promotion to Principal, Grade II was legally permissible. It urged that the 60:40/75:25 promotion ratios and the cadre rules justified denying the promotion to Headmasters seeking Principal, Grade II.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the provisional Headmaster postings did not extinguish their lien on the Lecturer post. Since they were provisionally promoted to Headmaster long before the relevant rules came into force, and because no express provision or consent to change cadre existed, they could not be deprived of the benefit of promotion to Principal, Grade II. They relied on earlier High Court decisions supporting their position and argued that the rules must be applied reasonably, avoiding absurd results.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Civil Writ Petition No. 2441/1982	—	Positive	Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a State contention similar to the present one; the Supreme Court followed this reasoning.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4918/1996	—	Positive	Another High Court decision rejecting the State’s contention; cited as support for the current ruling.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_r_ _1_ ...,. A ·-...... )_ ## STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. _v._ ## TEJA SINGH AND ORS. JANUARY 17,2007 [S.B. SINHAAND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] ## _Service law:_ , . .., _Lien-Promotion of respondents to the post of lecturer-Provisionally posted as Headmasters-Denied promotion to the post of Principal on the premise of having lost lien on the post of lecturer-Held: Respondents were_ c _promoted on provisional basis-Hence have not lost their lien-Not to be denied promotion to the post of Principal._ t The respondents were appointed as Masters in the Education Department. As they possessed Master degree, they were promoted to the post of Lecturer. In 197 4, they were temporarily posted as headmasters at their own pay. The respondents were denied the promotion to the post of Principal, Grade II on the premise that they, having been promoted to the post of Headmaster, lost their lien on the post of Lecturer. They successfully filed writ petitions before the High Court. Hence these appeals. D Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The Respondents were promoted on provisional basis. It cannot, therefore, be said that they lost their lien. Even the Cadre ControJJing 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 Head master 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, the same would result in an absurdity. Rules must be considered in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. [Para 8] [1107-D-F] F G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. _6401-6407_ of 2000. H 1105 i t 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) l S.C.R A From the Judgments and Final Orders dated 10.7.2000 and 12.7.2000 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. Nos. 800/2000 in C.W.P. No. 12829/1995, 819-824/2000 in C.W.P. Nos. 10327, 7213/1995, 18164/1994, 9426, 7719 and 96011995 respectively D.P. Singh, Shashank Moona and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. B > Manoi Swarup, Atulesh Kr. Anant, S.C. Paul, Roopa Paul, Mohinder Singh, Rekha Pandey and Subhash Sharma for the Respondents. _)_ 'l'[.,,, ] The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c D S.B. SINHA, J. : I. 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. 1 1 E F 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. ## G 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 H Headmaster/Lecturer. The respondents were denied the promotion to the _-i._[__.,. ] l 1107 ## STATE _v._ TEJA SINGH [SINHA, J.] __. -,, ' • ._. )_ 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 pennissible at the relevant time, cannot be denied the benefit of promotion to the post of Prindpal, 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. D.G. Appeals dismissed . A c D E F G