Page No.# 1/20 GAHC040002022020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/75/2020 TASING SINGKOM S/O LT. TALO SINGKOM, VILLAGE RAVA, C/O PRINCIPAL GOVT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, HAYULIANG, PO/PS HAYULIANG, ANJAW DISTT, AP VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVT OF AP, ITANAGAR 2:THE COMMISSIONER EDUCATION Age: 0 Occupation : GOVT OF AP ITANAGAR 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION Age: 0 Occupation : GOVT OF AP ITANAGAR 4:Tatin Mindo Age: 0 Occupation : ST (Biology) C/o Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Mebo East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Tam Tapa Age: 0 Page No.# 2/20 Occupation : ST (Biology) C/o Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Seppa East Kameng Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tari, Pekyum Tamin,1 H Gyati,T J Dogum Advocate for the Respondent : Tagum Jamoh, T Loma,Teshi Aaku,N Kanu,T Rahul,P Tatam,N Kuma,N Rama,Taba Tagum,SC (Education),Marto Kato,Nyali Sora,Peli Ete,M Tanga,T. Deliyang BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent No.4; and Mr. Ita Techi, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities,more particularly the Respondent no.3, for consideration of his case for promotion to the cadre of Post Page No.# 3/20 Graduate Teacher (PGT), with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted with all consequential reliefs. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed, as under; The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Junior Teacher and was so posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Daporijo, vide an order dated 22-06- 2009. The next promotional avenue of a Junior Teacher, having the requisite educational qualification, is to the post of Post Graduate Teacher(PGT). The promotions to the Post Graduate Teacher/Senior Teacher is governed by the provisions of the “Senior Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2008”, as amended.In terms of the said Rules, 50% of the post in the cadre of Senior Teacher is to be so recruited from Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and the remaining 50% is to be so recruited by way of direct recruitment. In terms of the provisions of the said Rule, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) is required to possess a 2ndclass Master Degree in Page No.# 4/20 the concerned subject from a recognized university along with a B.Ed. Degree for being eligible for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). The petitioner projects that he was a Master Degree holder and had acquired his B.Ed. Degree in the year 2010 and was accordingly eligible for promotion to the cadre of Senior Teacher/PGT,in terms of the provisions of the said Rules of 2008, as amended. It is projected that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, were also appointed as a Junior Teacher vide order dated 22-06-2009.The petitioner projects that in the year 2011, although he was eligible in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 2008, as amended, for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), his case was not considered and the Respondent No.4 was promoted from the cadre of Junior Teacherto that of Post Graduate Teacher. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.5, was also so considered in the year 2014, for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher and he was promoted vide order dated 07-10-2014. However, the petitioner's case for such promotion was not again considered by the Page No.# 5/20 Respondent Authorities. The petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of promotion to him, had approached the Respondent Authorities by way of preferring representations, praying for his retrospective promotion. The representation submitted by the petitioner not being considered, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.193 (AP)/2018. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 27-04-2018, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing that the representations dated 05-02-2013 and 28-04-2015, preferred by the petitioner be considered in terms of the relevant Rules, within a period of 02 (two) months. The petitioner thereafter, was considered by the constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)and in terms of the recommendations made in his case, the petitioner was promoted vide an order dated 04-12-2018, to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher (Biology). However, the petitioner was so promoted prospectively. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present Page No.# 6/20 writ petition. 4. Mr. K. Tari,learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had preferred the representations dated 05-02-2013 and 28-04-2015, praying for his retrospective promotion w.e.f. the date his juniors i.e. the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, were promoted to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher. However, the said representations preferred by the petitioner were not considered by the Respondent Authorities and he was promoted vide the order dated 04-12-2018, only prospectively. By referring to the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1, the learned counselfor the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the said affidavit would go to reveal that it is the stand of the Respondent Authorities that the petitioner,herein, had not furnished his B.Ed. mark- sheets and certificates, before 2012 and/or before 2014 when the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, were so promoted to the cadre of PGT. 4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had acquired his B.Ed. Degree certificate in Page No.# 7/20 the year 2010 and had promptly furnished the mark-sheets and the certificates, thereof, to the Respondent Authorities. He submits that his case not being considered in the year 2011, along with the Respondent No.4, a fresh D.P.C. being contemplated, the petitioner had again forwarded his B.Ed.Degree marksheets as well as all his B.Ed. certificates vide a communication dated 05-02-2013 through the Principal of the school, he was working in. He submits that the respondents have projected that the said communication was received by the Respondent Authorities only on 20-04-2015. 4.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date when the Respondent No.4, was promoted, the petitioner had acquired the requisite eligibility criteria for being promoted to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher and accordingly, non-consideration of his case for such promotion had violated his fundamental rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even when the Respondent No.5, was so considered for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher, the case Page No.# 8/20 of the petitioner was not considered, although the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite eligibility criteria as mandated in the said Rules of 2008, as amended. 4.3. Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, has submitted that the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner had caused prejudice to his service interest and accordingly, a direction is called upon to be issued to the Respondent Authorities to convene a review meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, for consideration of the case of the petitioner w.e.f. the date when such consideration was extended to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 5. Per contraMr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has submitted that when the case of the Respondent No.4 was so considered in the year 2011, although it is projected that the petitioner had acquired his B.Ed. Degree in the year 2010, the particulars, thereof, was never forwarded by the petitioner and/or the school authorities of the school, wherein, the petitioner was so serving to the Department. Accordingly, the petitioner Page No.# 9/20 being found to have not acquired the requisite eligibility criteria in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 2008, as amended, the case of the petitioner was not so considered. Mr. T. Tagum,submits that although the petitioner has projected that he had forwarded his B.Ed. Degreecertificates and other particulars videa communication dated 05-02-2013, the said communication was in fact found to have been received by the Director of the Secondary Education Department, only on 20-04-2015 and accordingly, the case of the petitioner was not permissible to be so considered when the case of the Respondent No.5, was considered for promotion to the cadre ofPost Graduate Teacher. 5.1. Mr. T. Tagum, further submits that although the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 16-05-2017, the petitioner not having submitted his vigilance clearance certificate, which is a mandatory document for consideration of a case of an employee for promotion to the higher post, the name of the petitioner came to be placed in the waiting list at serial Page No.# 10/20 no.2. The said waiting list having lapsed, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher, could not be considered. It is submitted that thereafter, on a due consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), a recommendation being made in his favour, the petitioner came to be promoted vide an order dated 04-12- 2018, to the cadre of PGT, albeit prospectively. Mr. T. Tagum,submits that the petitioner at this point of time cannot be permitted to assail the promotion effected in respect of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, more particularly, when the case of the petitioner was not so considered at that relevant point of time only in view of the fact that the petitioner had not furnished the requisite documents. 6. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent No.4, has submitted that the Respondent No.4 in pursuance to the promotion effected in his case in the year 2012, having continued against the said post and there being no challenge to the said promotion till the institution of the present writ petition in the year 2020, the Page No.# 11/20 promotion effected in respect of the Respondent No.11, would not mandate an interference from this Court. He however, submits that in the event, without disturbing the case of the Respondent No.4, the case of the petitioner is directed to be considered by this Court, he would have no objection for the same. 7. Mr. Ita Techi, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent no.5, has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and has submitted that in the event, this Court directs for a consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion with retrospective effect, however without effecting the promotion effected in respect of the Respondent No.5, he would have no grievance with regard to the same. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayedfor a direction for promoting him to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher, with retrospective effect i.e.w.e.f. the date his juniors more particularly the Respondent Nos.4 Page No.# 12/20 and 5 were so promoted. The promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher is governed by the provisions of the Senior Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2008, as amended. In terms of the said Rules a Junior Teacher possessing a 2nd class Master Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university along with a B.Ed. Degree, is entitled to have his case considered for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher. The said Rules further stipulate that the posts in the cadre of PGT, shall be so filled up by way of direct recruitment to the extent of 50% of the posts and the remaining 50% of the posts would be so filled up by way of promotion from Trained Graduate Teachers by applying the criteria of “Seniority-cum-Merit”. 10. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that on the promotions being effected in respect of his juniors, he had approached the Respondent Authorities for consideration of his case, for promotion with retrospective effect, to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher. The representations preferred by the petitioner not having been considered, the petitioner had approached this Court Page No.# 13/20 by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.193 (AP)/2018. 11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27-04-2018, by appreciating the submissions of the learned for the petitioner,that the petitioner was senior to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, herein, (who were also impleaded as a Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the above noted petition), had proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing for disposal of the representations preferred by the petitioner in the matter. Thereafter, the Respondent Authorities had placed the case of the petitioner before the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 05-07-2018, on a consideration of the case of the petitioner, had proceeded to observe that the petitioner had submitted his B.Ed Degree certificates and other testimonials along with a forwarding letter from the Principal only on 05-02- 2013.However, the same was found to have been received in the erstwhile Directorate of Secondary Education only on 20-04-2015, after the meeting of the DPC was so Page No.# 14/20 convened. It was further observed that the name of the petitioner was also considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 16-05-2017. However, a recommendation was not made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he had not submitted the vigilance clearance certificate. Basing on the said conclusions and on a consideration of the matter, it is seen that the petitioner was finally recommended for promotion and accordingly,vide order dated 04-12-2018, the petitioner came to be promoted to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher,however, with prospective effect. The petitioner in the present writ petition has made categorical assertion to the effect that he had submitted his B.Ed. certificatesimmediately on acquiring the said qualification and further, the said certificate along with other relevant documents were submitted vide a communication dated 19- 05-2011 to the Directorate of Secondary Education. It is submitted that the projection made by the respondents of having received the said communication only in the year 2015, to be perverse. 12. Be that as it may, this Court on a consideration of Page No.# 15/20 the materials coming on record and by reckoning the fact that the petitioner had the requisite qualifications as of 2011, and also as of 2015, when the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, were so promoted to the cadre of PGT, this Court is of the considered opinion that a due consideration to the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher was not extended to him by the Respondent Authorities. 13. 13. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would also notice that from the materials brought on record, this Court is not in a position to determine the inter seseniority between the petitioner and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, in the cadre of Junior Teacher, after they were so appointed vide appointment orders all dated 22-06- 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has submitted that the petitioner had sought for the gradation list of Junior Teachers, however, the same was not furnished to him. 14. In view of the above position and this Court having already concluded that the petitioner was not extended Page No.# 16/20 with a due consideration of his case for promotion to the cadre of PGT, when such consideration was extended to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, this Court proceeds to pass the following directions. (i) The Respondent Authorities are now required to convene a review meeting of the DPC, which was so convened in the year 2011, leading to the promotion of the Respondent No.4, to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher, vide the order dated 05-12- 2011. (ii) The review DPC shall consider the B.Ed. Degree qualification of the petitioner and if the projection made by the petitioner that the said qualification was so acquired by him in the year 2010, proceed to hold that the petitioner had the requisite eligibility criteria for being considered for promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher. The review DPC, shall thereafter, determine the seniority position of the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Teacher in relation to the seniority position assigned to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. (iii) In the event, it is found that the petitioner was Page No.# 17/20 placed above the Respondent No.4 in the seniority list, the review DPC shall,consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules holding the field and recommend his name for such promotion w.e.f. the date the Respondent No.4, was so promoted. (iv) In the event, the DPC finds that the Respondent No.4,herein, was placed above the petitioner in the seniority list of the cadre of Junior Teachers, the DPC shall consider the case of the petitioner as to whether he was also eligible for being promoted to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 2011 and make recommendation accordingly in this connection. (v) In the event, the review DPC on complying with the directions at(i) and (ii) above, finds that the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted to the cadre of PGT w.e.f. 2011, the Departmental Authorities, would now convene a review meeting of the DPC held on 25-08-2014, pursuant to which the Respondent No.5, was promoted to the cadre of PGTvide an order dated 07-10-2014. (vi) The review DPC shall again ascertain the seniority Page No.# 18/20 position of the petitioner vis-à-vis the Respondent No.5 in the cadre of a Junior Teacher and thereafter, in the event the petitioner is found to be senior to the Respondent No.5, shall by deeming that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the cadre of PGT, proceed to consider his case for such promotion by applying the criteria ofseniority-cum-merit and make its recommendations in the matter. Such consideration be also extended to the petitioner, if he is found to be eligible for such promotion,although was found to be junior to the Respondent no.5, in the cadre of Junior Teacher. (vii) The recommendations of the review DPC being received, in the event, the petitioner is found to be so entitled for promotion either w.e.f. 2011 i.e. from the date the Respondent No.4, was so promoted and/or from the year 2014, when the Respondent No.5, was so promoted, the Respondent Authorities, shall proceed to grant retrospective effect to the promotion granted to the petitioner vide order dated 04-12-2018 to the post Page No.# 19/20 of PGT and make the same effective either w.e.f. from 2011 and/or 2014, as the case may be. However, while promoting the petitioner with retrospective effect, the promotion effected in case of the respondent nos.4 and 5, shall not be disturbed in any manner. (viii) The petitioner on being granted retrospective promotion either w.e.f. 2011 and/or 2014, shall not be entitled to draw his salaries in the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher w.e.f. the date the retrospective effect has now been granted to his promotion to the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher.The salaries of the petitioner w.e.f. the retrospective date of promotion now granted to him, shall be so fixed notionally till 04-12-2018.The petitioner would be entitled to receive his arrear salaries, upon such notional fixation,only w.e.f.04-12- 2018. (ix) The exercise now required to be initiated for complying with the directions passed, hereinabove, be initiated and concluded with the release of the arrear salaries to the petitioner, if any, within a period of 04 Page No.# 20/20 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant