Plain reading of clause III (D) of Schedule II of SRO 481 dated 30-12-2010 make it apparent clear that a teacher with minimum three years service having obtained postgraduate degree from a UGC recognised University becomes eligible for his/her promotion as 10+2 Lecturer provided that vacancy of the respective quota would be available at the relevant point of time.
This is mandate of recruitment rule for in service teachers and when a teacher is promoted In pursuance to these rules then raising any dispute against such promotee is severe injustice. On the other hands Rule 24 of Classification Control and Appeal Rules of 1956 makes it clear that an officer selected by PSC and appointed by Govt becomes entitled for fixation of his seniority from such date from which he is appointed by the Govt. to this cadre.
There is a service Law pounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court that a selected candidate has no right to seek appointment from the Govt and it is prerogative of the Govt. to appoint him/her or not. Thus it become apparent clear that even a selected candidate is not equal to a teacher promoted as Lecturer through DPC, untill he is appointed , then why the dispute?
Prior to 2010 ,10+2 Lecturers forum had been appreciated by all the other organizations, unions, Associations and forums of the employees for its uniqueness based on the unity among its members. It is unfortunate that some persons with vested interest in order to disintegrate the members of plus two Lecturers forum have been misguiding them by misinterpreting a Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled ‘Suraj Parkash Gupta VS State of J and K and others’.
In order to clear the doubts of members of +2 Lecturer forum some important and relevant paras of said Judgement , other important facts and some extracts from service Law are produced here in below for the perusal of all the concerned.
Pate 82 of Suraj Parkash Gupta Judgement,
“A direct recruit can claim seniority from the date of his regular appointment only. He can not claim seniority from the time when direct recruitment vacancy arose. He can not claim seniority before his birth in the service or when he was in School or in the College”.
Besides from the below mentioned service Law(s) and facts it will become crystal clear that seniority of Lecturers appointed w.e.f.1992 to 1998 can not be challenged by Lecturers appointed through PSC that too at such a stage when latters had been Promoted as Seniors Lecturers.
In pursuance to a service Law pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the seniority assigned to an employee can not be challenged after a lapse of seven years . It is settled Law that fense-sitter can not be allowed to raise a dispute or challenge the validity of an order after its conclusion. once the Seniority has been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period any challenge to the same should not be entertained. As per another Service Law a seniority which remains in existence for three or four years un challenged , should not be disturbed.
In pursuance to the Service Law Lecturers appointed through PSC after 28-12-1998 can not challenge the seniority of Lecturers appointed through DPC prior to 28-12-1998 . On the other hands only those candidates who had been appointed as Lecturers through PSC could challenge the quota posts who had acquired eligibility qualification for the post of 10+2 Lecturers prior to 28-12-1998 but such candidates have no right to challenge the seniority of Lecturers appointed through DPC who had been in School or College up to 28-12-1998.
An others important fact worth considering and understanding in the interest of natural Justice is that had the posts of +2 Lecturers been advertised w.e.f 1992 to 1998 then certainly the incumbent working as teachers/Masters during the said period and having Postgraduate degrees in the relevant subjects would have been selected and appointed as 10+2 Lecturers through PSC and they would have been placed as Seniors Lecturers among 457 officers placed as Seniors Lecturers vide order dated 24-2-2011 and thus there must had not been any dispute of any kind. Since posts of +2 Lecturers were not advertised from 1992 to 1998, thus teachers/Maters continued to work in their respective cadres up to April, 2003 and had been subsequently promoted as In charge Lecturers w.e.f April,2003 to 2006.
In pursuance to the report of a high power committed constituted in pursuance to Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Suraj Parkash Gupta read with Govt order NO 107-GAD of 2002 dated 16-01-2002 all these teachers/Masters were entitled for their Regularization from the dated promotion or date of eligibility which ever was later but unfortunately on this occasion they were given loss of one year to two years that too contrary to the Judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court and report of high power committee quoted and discussed above.
It is settled proposition of the Law that on the basis of eligibility acquired in accordance with the statuary Rules in respect of service length and qualification the teachers/Masters promoted w.e.f April 2003 to 2006 were entitled to challenge the regularization of Lecturers placed as in charge Lecturers wef 1992 to 1998 on the ground that they had a right to participate in the selection processes if the posts had been advertised by PSC prior to 28-12-1998. In this way on remaining silent, and ir-repair loss had occurred to the teachers/Maters.
Thus loss had occurred to teachers/Masters twice, once when posts were not advertised and second when loss occurred to them in Regularization.
Thereafter PSC Lecturers created hurdles in Regularization processes of teachers/Masters as 10+2 Lecturers during the year 2013 and in this way an ir-repair loss had occurred to such incumbents some of whom also include parents of the PSC Lecturers. This make it apparent clear that some of the PSC Lecturers had not even spared to their parents but unfortunately without properly understanding the mandate of statutory Rules and service Law governing the field.
One more aspect pertinent to mention here is that as per service Law separate seniority is maintained in such cadre(s) where appointments are made on the basis of two type of qualifications i.e: diploma and degree. As far +2 Lecturer cadre is concerned here factors like nature of duties , responsibility and qualification are same, so question of separate seniority does not arise at all in spirit of service law(s) discussed above read with rule 24 of Classification Control and Appeal Rules of 1956 but now only a few PSC Lectures have been raising the demand of separate seniority.
As per quota rules when a Lecturer appointed through PSC will retire or will be promoted as principal then vacancy of PSC quota will be created. In the similar manner when a Lecturer appointed through DPC quota will retire or will be promoted as Principal then vacancy of DPC quota will be created. Since the Lecturer through PSC are appointed in young age so the question of their retirement does not arise from the cadre of Lecturer or Senior Lecturer . From this discussion it become quite clear that when separate quota will be fixed for PSC and DPC then there will be huge stagnation among PSC Lecturers.
The purpose of writing this article is to make all the 10+2 Lecturers sufficient aware about the dispute of seniority which is not tenable any more. so please understand the relevant service Law and recruitment Rules , clear you doubts if any and then leave such dispute in future and unite all at one platform in order to become sufficient strong for getting resolved all the genuine demands of all the plus two officers and also for imparting quality Education to the students who are on roll in all the Higher Secondary Schools across the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
Author can be contacted at email@example.com