TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court grants appeal for teacher promotion, citing qualifications and unfilled posts.</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The appellant was deemed eligible for promotion to the L.T. Grade teacher ... - Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for promotion to the post of L.T. Grade teacher.2. Compliance with the 40% promotion quota for L.T. Grade posts.Summary:1. Eligibility for Promotion:The appellant, initially appointed as a C.T. Grade teacher in Home Science in 1966, contended that she should have been promoted to the L.T. Grade teacher post sanctioned on August 29, 1977. The High Court dismissed her claim, stating she did not possess the minimum qualifications on the relevant date. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appellant met the qualifications prescribed in Appendix 'A' of the Regulations, which included a Teacher's Certificate from the College of Home Science, Allahabad. The Court clarified that the qualifications in the executive notification dated October 3, 1974, could not override the statutory qualifications in the Regulations. Therefore, the appellant was eligible for promotion as she had more than five years of continuous substantive service and the requisite qualifications.2. Compliance with the 40% Promotion Quota:The High Court also held that the appellant failed to prove that 40% of the L.T. Grade posts were not filled by promotion. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had specifically pleaded that only one out of ten filled L.T. Grade posts was by promotion, supported by the Deputy Director of Education's letter. The respondents did not dispute this in their reply. The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in official acts and found that the High Court erred in requiring the appellant to prove the negative. The Court concluded that the appellant had established that 40% of the L.T. Grade posts were not filled by promotion.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It directed that the appellant be treated as promoted to the L.T. Grade teacher post from the date respondent No. 6 was appointed, with consequential benefits. This decision did not affect respondent No. 6's appointment, and a supernumerary post could be created if necessary. No orders as to costs were made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
