AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioners are Lecturers working in the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) in Chengannur and Attingal respectively. They are mainly aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturers. Ext.P26 is the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction which is under challenge.
The view taken in Ext.P26 is that the petitioners have not been included in the seniority list for lack of required eligibilities and, accordingly, their representations have been rejected.
The case of the petitioners in a nut shell is the following:
The first petitioner is a M.A. Degree and Diploma holder in Music. He is having Ganapraveen from Swathi Thirunal College of Music, Thiruvananthapuram, Sangeetha Shiromani from Delhi University, Advanced Study from South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur, Chennai and doing Ph.D under the guidance of two competent Guides at Kannur University. He is also having experience of various capacities. The second petitioner is M.P.E., M. Phil (Physical Education) Degree holder. He is also having varied experience.
They have been appointed as Lecturers in the faculties of Art Education and Physical Education.
The petitioners'' claim is for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturers in DIET. They submitted Exts.P22 and P23 representations claiming promotion and since there was delay in considering the same, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 5710/2009 which was disposed of by Ext.P24 Judgment. They have been offered a hearing also and, Ext.P25 is the copy of the hearing note submitted by them. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the guidelines for promotion are those provided under Ext.P27. Ext.P27 is one framed by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, New Delhi. My attention was invited to the qualification for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education and Art Education. In Ext.P26, the view taken is that the petitioners are not having the qualifications as suggested by the MHRD, namely, Masters Degree in Humanities/Social Sciences/Sciences etc. It is not disputed that the petitioners are not having the said qualification. Apart from the same, the other difficulty for the petitioners is the absence of Senior Lecturer posts in Art Education and Physical Education. Therefore, unless posts are there, they cannot aspire for promotion also. Evidently, this will result in the stagnation of the petitioners in the present posts they are working. It is pointed out that to acquire M.Ed. also there are no facilities in Music or Physical Education. This is a matter for the authority to consider evidently. But, still this Court may not be justified in interfering with Ext.P26 since the above scenario will show that the fact that the petitioners are not having the qualifications for promotion in other faculties also, even though the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is as per the seniority list, various persons are considered for promotion in different faculties. Even if seniority will be a criteria, qualifications are essential. All aspects have been explained in the counter affidavit.
Therefore, the chances for promotion as far as the petitioners are concerned are not there now. In the reply affidavit it is pointed out that since they are stagnating in the post of Lecturers, at least, they are entitled for the benefits of Higher Grade. This is a matter which the petitioners will have to raise before the authorities concerned by filing appropriate representations. In that view of the matter, the challenge against Ext.P26 fails and the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioners make any claim for grant of higher benefits by filing suitable representations, the same will be considered by the concerned authority and appropriate orders will be passed expeditiously. No costs.