CWP-8151-2018 216 IN THE GULAB SING STATE OF HA CORAM: HO HO Present: No M SANJEEV PR 1. No one 01.04.20 has not appeared Continuo adjournm 2. The petit the prese whereby Principal M.A./M. 018 (O&M) p. 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. F HARYANA & ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** None for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., **** V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) one appears for the petitioners. On .04.2024, request was made for adjo s not seen the light of the day. Ea peared for the petitioner, nor anyone ntinuous requests have been mad journment of this case. e petitioners are holding the post of H present petition seeking to quash the ereby the qualifications laid down incipal from Head Master have been m /M.Sc./M.Com with 50% marks wa NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CWP-8151-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA A.G., Haryana. ral) rs. On the last date of hearing, i.e. r adjournment, whereafter this case ay. Earlier on 09.11.2023, no one nyone had appeared on 29.10.2022. made from time to time for st of Head Masters. They have filed sh the notification dated 11.04.2012 own for promotion to the post of been modified, and condition to pass rks was introduced. M) 2025 ioner s , i.e. case one 022. for filed 2012 st of pass MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8151-2018 3. It also c Head Ma The grie concerne criteria w Masters 4. It is fur considera as the va years pri that the and they Educatio 1988, an 5. The resp is requir well as L been teac be applic changed Lecturers fact that strength 018 (O&M) p. 2 also challenges the quota of post re ad Masters for the purpose of promo rievance has been raised that ncerned, the earlier requirement of ha teria was relaxed. By the impugned n s has been reduced from 40% to 3 is further submitted that the petiti nsideration for promotion in terms of the vacancy for which consideration ars prior to the year of amendment. T t the new Rules could not have been d they would continue to be gove ucation (School and Inspection Cadr and accordingly promotion should e respondents in their reply have conte required to be filled from both the c ll as Lecturers (School Education). S en teaching for long, the criteria of po applicable to the present Lecturers. Th anged from 60:40 to 35:35, and then cturers and Head Masters. The same hat the strength of PGT Cadre (Lec ength of Head Master cadre in the dep ost revised amongst Lecturers and promotion to the post of Principal. that so far as the Lecturers are t of having B.Ed as a pre-eligibility ned notification, the quota for Head % to 31%. petitioners would be entitled for ms of the earlier un-amended Rules, ration was being made related to the ent. The petitioners have also stated e been made applicable upon them, governed by the Haryana State n Cadre) (Group B) Service Rules, hould be granted to them. e contended that the post of Principal, the cadres namely Head Master as . Since the existing Lecturers have a of possessing B.A. was not held to ers. The ratio of promotion has been then from 35:35 to 80:20 between same has been done in view of the e (Lecturer) is much higher than the he department. A policy decision has and ipal. are bility Head for ules, o the tated hem, State , cipal, er as have ld to been ween f the n the n has MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8151-2018 been tak cadres. 6. The post when the are made that the e has to be 7. We have by the re Masters promotio service, post is fo be filled of the ea has to be Head M acquire opportun change existing H 8. We find Lecture extent is 018 (O&M) p. 3 en taken with the purpose to mainta dres. e posts which are to be filled, are not t en the vacancy has occurred, but on made, and in this respect therefore, th t the earlier Rules of 1998 will apply s to be rejected. e have considered the record and peru the respondents, and find that the peti asters and the only right available to omotion. No right of promotion is a rvice, and therefore the claim for high st is found to be untenable. The 20% p filled from amongst the eligible Head the earlier year, though the promotio s to be with reference to the record o ad Masters who are working since quire new educational qualifications portunity is given to an employee by ange of educational qualification for p isting Head Masters, and would apply e find that similar relaxation has als cturers. In view thereto, the contentio tent is found to be legal and justified. maintain balance between both the e not to be with reference to the date ut on the time when the promotions fore, the contention of the petitioners apply instead of the new provisions, d perused the written statement filed he petitioners were working as Head ble to them is for consideration for n is available to any employee in or higher percentage of promotional 20% posts of Principals will have to e Head Masters. If the vacancies are omotion may be conducted today, it cord of the concerned year and the since long, cannot be expected to cations while in service. No such ee by the department, and therefore n for promotion would not affect the apply prospectively. as also been given to the existing tention of the petitioners to the said ified. the date tions ners , filed Head n for e in ional ve to s are it d the d to such efore t the sting said MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8151-2018 9. Thus, so being a p inter se Court wo 10. The Sup Aluminiu ob Ste Lo Ap ob asc as giv wo inv eff co ine ma ro wh Co tha the ma 018 (O&M) p. 4 us, so far as quota of post revised by t ing a purely policy decision based on se cadre strength of PGT (Lecturer urt would be slow in interfering with t he Supreme Court in the case of Bhar minium Technical Service, Inc., 201 “61. Mr. Sorabjee has also r observations made by Lord Diplock Steels Ltd. (supra). In the aforesaid j Lords disapproved the approach ad Appeal in discerning the intention o observed that :- "...the role of the judici ascertaining from the words that Pa as expressing its intention what that giving effect to it. Where the mea words is plain and unambiguous it i invent fancied ambiguities as an exc effect to its plain meaning beca consider that the consequences o inexpedient, or even unjust or imm matters such as are involved in indu room for differences of opinion as what is just and what is morally Constitution it is Parliament's opin that is paramount." In the same judgment, it is fur "But if this be the case it is f the judiciary, to decide whether an made to the law as stated in the Act." ed by the department is concerned, it sed on factual aspects relating to the ecturers) and the Head Masters, this with the said policy decision. Bharat Aluminium Co. vs. Kaiser , 2012(9) SCC 552, held as under: lso rightly pointed out the lock in the case of Duport said judgment, the House of h adopted by the Court of ion of the legislature, it is udiciary is confined to t Parliament has approved that intention was, and to meaning of the statutory s it is not for the judges to n excuse for failing to give because they themselves s of doing so would be immoral. In controversial industrial relations there is as to what is expedient, lly justifiable. Under our opinion on these matters (emphasis supplied) s further observed :- t is for Parliament, not for r any changes should be Act." ed, it o the , this iser MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8151-2018 11. It is sett in relatio judges an found to accept th 12. We, ther notificati accordan with rega hereinab read dow applied i Masters a 13. With the The resp 14. All pend 30.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether 018 (O&M) p. 5 settled law that in matters relating t relation to service matters, the admini ges and this Court would not interven und to be arbitrary and unreasonable to cept the same to be in accordance with e, therefore, do not accept the conten tification dated 11.04.2012 is found cordance with the provisions of the th regard to the requirement of educati reinabove, and to the said extent, the n d down to mean that the said educ plied in future to the new incumben asters and not to the existing Head Mas ith the said observations, writ petitio e respondents shall now conduct the e ll pending applications also stand dispo (SANJE (ME ther speaking/reasoned? Ye ther reportable? Ye ating to policy decision, and that too dministrative authorities are the best tervene in such decisions, unless it is able to the extent that no person can e with law. contention of the petitioners and the found to be valid, legal and in f the Constitution. The aspect only ducation qualification has been dealt t, the notification dated 11.04.2012 is d educational qualification shall be mbent who are appointed as Head ad Masters. petition is disposed of accordingly. t the exercise accordingly. d disposed of. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No t too best s it is can d the d in only dealt 12 is ll be Head ngly. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document