A
bare perusal of the provisions would go to show that where the Management has
notified a vacancy to the Board in accordance with Section 10 (1) of the afore-quoted
Act and the post of Principal or Headmaster actually remained
vacant for more than two months, the Management has to fill such vacancy on
purely ad-hoc basis by promoting the seniormost teacher in the lecturer's grade
in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Principal, and in the trained
graduate's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Headmaster.
Sub-Section (2) of Section100
18 provides that where Management fails to promote the seniormost
teacher under sub-section (1), the District Inspector of Schools120 // has been authorized to
issue the order of promotion of such teacher and the teacher concerned shall be
entitled to get his salary as the Principal or Headmaster, as the case
may be, from the date he joins such post in pursuance of such order of
promotion. Sub-section (3) provides that where the teacher to whom the order of
promotion is issued under sub-section (2), is unable to join the post of the
Principal or Headmaster, as the200
case may be, due to any act or omission on the part of Management, such teacher
may submit his joining report to the Inspector, and shall thereupon be entitled
to get his salary as the Principal or Headmaster, as the240 // case may be, from the date he submits
the said report. Sub-section (4) of Section 18 provides that every appointment
of an ad-hoc Principal or Headmaster under sub-section (1) of sub-section (2)
shall cease to have effect from when the candidate recommended by the Board
joins the post. Section 21 provides that the Management shall not, except with300 the prior approval of the Board, dismiss
any teacher or remove him from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments
or withhold his increment for any period and any such thing done without
such prior approval shall be void. In the present case, it has
been sought to be contended that Section 18 imposes unreasonable
restriction on360 // the right of Management to appoint ad-hoc
Principal of their choice, and without their wish, the seniormost teacher is
trusted upon the institution. In the present case, Section 18 as has been noted
above, confers right on the seniormost teacher400
to be appointed as ad-hoc Principal of the institution. The said appointment
is made, when the Management has notified the vacancy to the Selection Board, and
the post in question remained actually vacant for two months, then in this contingency
till regular selection is not made by Selection Board, the seniormost teacher
is to be promoted. Substantive appointment is to be made on the
recommendation of Selection Board. Once in the matter of substantive
appointment on the post of480 //
Principal, no role is assigned to be played by the Management, then certainly
in the matter of ad hoc promotion500
of Principal, Management cannot have any legitimate grievance of their
right being infringed. The appointments to the post of Deputy Manager in
the present case were obviously not made on the basis of direct
recruitment, but the selection and appointment were made on the basis of
promotion. The list of candidates called for selection was only of
serving employees and no claim of any outsider was considered. It is
evident from a bare reading of Rule 21, that no employee can claim promotion as
a matter of right. It will depend on one's own suitability as on his
relative600 // standing
with the others eligible for promotion. Rule 20 provides that promotions will
be considered on the basis of ‘suitability-cum-seniority’ in the grades or
inter-linked grade below the grade for which the promotions are being
considered subject to fitness of the employee being certified by the Head of
the Department. A combined reading of Rules 20, 21 and 22 makes it abundantly
clear that suitability of a candidate for promotion has to be compared
with others eligible for promotion.
It is
not the case of the appellant that her case was not at all
considered for promotion to700
the post of Deputy Manager. It is clear from the record that the claim
of the appellant for promotion was720
// duly considered along with other eligible candidates including respondent
nos. 3 and 4 who were ultimately found eligible and suitable for
promotion. The Selection Board having assessed the ratings of each of the
previous three years’ annual performance appraisals and performance of
the appellant in the interview found her not suitable for promotion. The
respondent nos. 3 and 4 had outstanding ratings in their annual performance
appraisals and were found suitable by the Selection Board. We cannot sit in appeal800 over the assessment made by the
Selection Board and substitute our own opinion for that of the Board. In the
result, we find the decision to select and appoint respondent nos. 3 and 4 is
not vitiated for any reason840
// whatsoever.
The
post of Deputy Manager is an upper managerial post, which in terms of the
existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules, could be filled either by direct
recruitment or by promotion. If the vacancy was to be filled up by way of
promotion, promotion in such cases obviously means promotion on the
basis of suitability-cum-seniority. The process of900 selection on the basis of suitability-cum-seniority
is in accordance with the package of Rules referred to herein above. It
is not necessary in this case to re-state and reiterate the
difference between promotion based on seniority-cum-merit and
merit-cum-seniority. The concept is different. In case of the former,
greater emphasis is laid on seniority, though it960 // is not the determinative
factor, while in the latter, merit is the determinative factor. For the
aforesaid reasons, we concur with the view taken by the High Court that
seniority alone was not the determinative criterion for promotion; merit1000 or comparative merit was also taken
into consideration by the Selection Board and the same is not contrary to law
and guidelines.1022
