AWADESH KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF SIKKIM

#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 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 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: G H • AWADESH KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF SIKKIM 309 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) Name of post SCHEDULE qualification required for promotion including Educational & Educational & qualification required for direct recruitment experience/ training/length of service in the lower post; {whether age education qualification prescribed for the direct recruitment will apply in the case of promotion) If a DPC exists what is compos In case recruit- promotion /deputation /transfer promotion/ deputation transfer to be made 1 8 9 11 12 Principal a) Graduate Sr. Sec. with B.Ed. Schools & 15 years As at column 8 administrative teaching experience (b) Master's Degree with B.Ed./M.Ed. With 7 years teaching experience As may cons!- ituted by the Govt. time to time by separatE notifica- ti on (a) Head- master of Sec. Schools with 15 service (b) PGT with B.Ed. With 7 regular service A B c D E F G H 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. E C D

#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, 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 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 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) 311 Headmasters of Secondary Schools with 15 years service, and A 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 B 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 C 6(5) of the 1999 Rules in the grade of the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School.

#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.