AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside impugned order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-24) whereby grant of 3rd Assured Career Progression Pay (ACP) to the petitioner has been declined. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner after granting an opportunity of being heard in person and allow him the benefit of 3rd ACP pay scale w.e.f. 01.12.2019 along with arrears and accrued interest @ 18% p.a.
CONTENTIONS
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Primary Teacher (JBT) vide order dated 17.11.1955 (Annexure P-1). He joined service as PRT (JBT) on 28.11.1995 and under the applicable service rules i.e. the Haryana Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre Service Rules, 1994 (Annexure P-2) (hereinafter ‘Rules of 1994’), his pay scale was Rs.12000-30-2040. He was subsequently promoted to Head Teacher, followed by TGT (SS) on 26.06.2009 (Annexure P-9). It is also submitted that the petitioner was granted the 2nd ACP pay scale w.e.f. 04.03.2014 after completion of 16 years of service. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner’s claim for grant of the benefit of 3rd ACP pay scale has been rejected on the ground that he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Elementary School Head Master (ESHM) as per Haryana School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘2012 Rules’) as one of the essential qualification for promotion to the said post is B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), which he does not satisfy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the notification dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-25) issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide which an amendment was made to the said requirement to the extent that the condition of 50% marks was imposed with respect to graduation or post-graduation and B.Ed. Additionally, a proviso was also imposed stating that the same would not be applicable to those candidates who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education prior to 29.07.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had acquired the degrees of B.A. and B.Ed. much prior to 29.07.2011 and, therefore, his case is squarely covered by the notification dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-25). Learned counsel further contends that the NCTE was established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative competence under Article 246 of the Constitution of India, read with Entry 66 of List I- Union List of the Seventh Schedule. It is, thus, contended that any State enactment, rule or executive instruction prescribing qualifications or standards inconsistent with those laid down by the NCTE would be inoperative to the extent of such inconsistency. Moreover, if such State enactment, rule or executive instruction falls within the ambit of List III-Concurrent List, the same would also be hit by the doctrine of repugnancy embodied in Article 254 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel further argues that the NCTE Regulations, governing academic standards for the appointment of teachers, are framed in exercise powers under Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and thus, carry full force of law. He relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, 2018(12) SCC 595 and submits that once the NCTE has taken a stand regarding not implementing the requirement of 50% marks for the candidates who had acquired their graduation degrees prior to 29.07.2011, vide the notification (Annexure P-25), the petitioner cannot be considered ineligible for the promotion to the post of ESHM. Moreover, the denial of 3rd ACP scale on the ground of not fulfilling the qualifications for promotion falls foul of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Amresh Kumar Sinha vs. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC Online SC 496. Learned counsel further submits that the issue in the present case is also squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1865-2015, titled as ‘State of Haryana vs. Parmanand,’ decided on 05.03.2025, wherein it has been categorically held that the eligibility prescribed for promotion cannot be adopted as a benchmark for grant of ACP benefits, as the object of the ACP Scheme is to alleviate stagnation in service.
Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the written statement, submits that the service of the petitioner is governed by the 2012 Rules, which stipulate that, in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of ESHM, the employee must possess 50% marks in B.A./B.Sc. However, the petitioner has obtained only 509 marks out of 1200 which makes for 42.4%. Further, Rule 8 of Haryana Civil Service (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter ‘ACP Rules, 2016’) provides that an employee ought to be fit for promotion to the immediate next higher post, which in the present case is ESHM, in order to claim benefit of ACP. Since the petitioner does not possess the essential qualification for promotion to the post of ESHM, his claim for 3rd ACP remains untenable. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.33225 of 2025 titled as ‘Ikbal Singh vs. State of Haryana and others’ has dismissed the writ petition of similarly circumstanced employees on the ground that the petitioners therein were not eligible to get promotion in view of the lack of the requisite educational qualifications. As such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner was granted 2nd ACP benefits on 04.03.2014 after completion of 16 years of satisfactory service. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to 3rd ACP benefits w.e.f. 01.12.2019, on completion of 24 years of regular satisfactory service in terms of the applicable ACP Scheme. However, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-24), the respondent-Department categorically rejected his claim for 3rd ACP in view of the ACP Rules, 2016, which require an employee to be eligible for the next promotion in order to be granted the concession of ACP.
The petitioner is presently working as TGT (SS), thus, the next post he could be promoted to is that of ESHM. However, Appendix B of the 2012 Rules lays down the following eligibility conditions in this regard:
“Appendix B (See Rule 7)
S. No. Designation of Posts Academic qualifications and experience, if any, for direct recruitment on contract basis Academic qualification and experience, if any for appointment other than by direct recruitment on contract basis 1 2 3 4 1. Elementary School Head Master By promotion:-(i)B.A/B.Sc. and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education; OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.); OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard; OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.); OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year B.A. B.Ed.; ORB.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education); (ii)5 years’ experience in regular capacity as Hindi/ Sanskrit/ Punjabi Teacher/TGT,
(iii)At least 3 weeks in-service training in administrative and accounts module.”
Before delving further into the matter at hand, it would be apposite to also study Rule 8 of the ACP Rules, 2016, which reads as follows:
“8.Other general conditions of eligibilities of ACP Level. – The following general conditions shall also be fulfilled by a Government employee for availing benefit of ACP Level:-
(a)after completing the respective prescribed period for eligibility for the grant of any of 1st, 2nd or 3rd ACP Level, the Government employee shall be fit to be promoted to the immediate next higher post only in the functional hierarchy in his cadre, but despite of fitness he could not be functionally promoted due to lack of vacancy or otherwise on the promotional post in the hierarchy to which he is eligible to be promoted;
(b)if such promotion involved passing of any departmental or other test, acquisition of higher educational qualification, etc., such condition shall also be fulfilled by the Government employee.
Exception. The condition of educational qualification and departmental test, if any, shall not be applicable to Group D employees while determining the eligibility for ACP Level where there is no promotional post in the hierarchy other than the post for which educational qualification of Matriculation or above is essential.
Note 1. – When a Government employee is not fit for promotion due to departmental/judicial proceedings pending against him or otherwise on the date of eligibility for grant of ACP Level, he shall not be granted the benefit of ACP Level until he is declared fit for promotion, it has also consequential effect on subsequent ACP upgradation.”
(emphasis added)
It is the case of the respondent-Department that the petitioner has scored about 42.2% in B.A. while promotion to the post of ESHM requires at least 50% marks therein. As such, it is contended, since the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of ESHM in terms of the 2012 Rules, he cannot be granted 3rd ACP as per the ACP Rules, 2016. However, notably, the NCTE issued a notification dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-25) amending the notification dated 23.08.2010, whereby minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher were laid down. The notification dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-25) reads as follows:
“F. No. NCTE-Reg/012/22/2019-US(Regulation)-HQ.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of the notification number Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy S.O. 750(E) dated 31st March 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 5th April, 2010, the National Council for Teacher Education hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, National Council for Teacher Education, vide F. No. 61-3/20/2010-NCTE(N&S) published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4, dated the 23rd August, 2010, namely:-
1.In the said notification in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph(ii),-
(A)in clause (a) for the words, figures, brackets and letters “Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)”, the words, figure and letters “At least 50% marks either in Graduation or in Post-Graduation and B.Ed.” shall be substituted.
(B)After clause (b), at the end, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
“Provided that minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to the 29th July, 2011.”
2.This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the 29thJuly, 2011.”
(emphasis added)
NCTE as the Principal Regulatory Authority for Teacher Education
At this juncture, it would be apposite to note that this Court in CWP No.25154 of 2023 titled as ‘Mamta Devi vs. State of Haryana and others’ decided on 12.08.2026 has reiterated the primacy of the NCTE in laying down standards for teacher education in extenso. Further, it was held that the State cannot override the regulations formulated by the NCTE, in furtherance of its statutory powers under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, in exercise of its executive powers. The relevant part thereof is reproduced as below:
“27.Be that as it may, Article 162 of the Constitution of India also makes it clear that the executive power of the State is co-extensive with the extent of its legislative power. Simply put, the State may only issue executive instructions in fields on which the State Legislature is competent to legislate. Considering that the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-18) is in the nature of an executive instruction, it ought to be tested on the anvil of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The coordination and regulation of higher education falls under Entry 66 of List I, giving the Parliament exclusive domain over it. On the other hand, the subject of education finds mention in Entry 25 of List III, though it has been subjected to provisions of Entries 63 to 66 of List I.
28.1.At this stage, it would be profitable to reiterate that the NCTE is the creation of the Parliament, and is entrusted with the responsibility to regulate teacher education standards by two Central enactments- the NCTE Act (enacted under Entry 66, List I) and the RTE Act (enacted under Entry 25, List III). In exercise of its powers under the said statutes, the NCTE issued the guidelines dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P-22), as such, they fall under the ambit of Parliament-made law. Therefore, it can also be reasonably concluded that the field of regulation of teacher education stands occupied by Central legislations under both List I and List III, thereby placing an embargo on the State Legislature to legislate on the same in a manner that is contradictory to the Central statute.
28.2.Article 162 of the Constitution of India clearly stipulates that the executive power of the State Government can only be exercised on subjects upon which the State Legislature has the authority to legislate. This further begs the inference that what cannot be done in exercise of legislative power of the State, is also forbidden to be undertaken in exercise of its executive power. Applying this principle to the present case, since the NCTE, a statutory body empowered by Parliamentary enactments, has already prescribed TET guidelines (Annexure P-22), subsequently amended by notification dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-23), the State Government is forbidden to contradict the same by issuing executive instructions by means of impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-18). Simply put, when the statutory norms prescribed in pursuance of parliamentary legislations already apply, the State Government does not possess the power to contradict them by legislative action or executive action.”
(emphasis added)
Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak’s case (supra), wherein the following has been held:
“17.There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an ‘academic authority’ under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.”
(emphasis added)
It is clear that the 2012 Rules formulated by the State Government do not accommodate the stipulations made by the NCTE vide notification dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-25). However, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding repugnancy is misfounded to the extent that the doctrine of repugnancy only arises when there is a conflict between a law made by the Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature, which is not the case here. However, as discussed in Mamta Devi’s case (supra), such action on part of the State is contradictory to Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The State Government, in exercise of its rule-making power, cannot achieve indirectly what is impermissible to be accomplished by means of a State legislation.
As such, the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to ESHM ought to be analysed in view of notification dated 13.11.2019 issued by the NCTE, which categorically states that the condition of minimum 50% marks in graduation shall not be applicable to employees who had enrolled in B.Ed prior to 29.07.2011. Considering that the petitioner had taken admission in B.Ed. in the year 1993, the requirement of securing a minimum of 50% marks cannot be applied his case.
ACP Benefits are not contingent upon Promotional Eligibility
The concession of ACP was especially incorporated in the Service Rules by the State to ensure that no government employee suffers stagnation in his/her career owing to lack of vacancies with respect to promotional posts. The financial upgradation aids in boosting the morale of the employees who have spent the requisite time period in service, even in absence of a promotion. A two-Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Amresh Kumar Sinha’s case (supra) has observed that the grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but an increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him. Consequently, it was held that fulfilment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for the grant of ACP. Speaking through Justice Pankaj Mithal, the following was opined:
“8.Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the sole question which arises for our reconsideration in these appeals is whether the qualification of graduation prescribed for promotion to the next higher post of Accounts Officer from that of Accounts Clerk is necessary even for the purpose of extending the benefit of ACP.
9.The Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000 as notified on 28th March, 2000 vide Rules 17 and 20 read with Schedule I thereof provides for recruitment by way of promotion. The aforesaid Rule 17, inter alia, provides that for promotion on the basis of grade of service, candidates must possess qualifications mentioned in Schedule I which, inter alia, provides that for promotion to Bihar Accounts Service, the minimum educational qualification shall be graduation.
10.At the same time Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 vide sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 lays down that if the rules prescribe passing of the departmental examination or any qualification for promotion that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme. In other words, possession of essential qualification prescribed under the rules is necessary for grant of benefit under the scheme, i.e., ACP.
11.It is in view of the above rules, the contention of the State is that until and unless the Accountant Clerks possess the minimum educational qualifications of graduation, they are not entitled to promotion in the grade of Bihar Accounts Service that is the Accounts Officer.
12.It may be worth noting that the ACP scheme was enforced on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in context with Group C and D employees and it provided monetary benefit to the employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service who were not able to get promotion. The scheme as such was anti-stagnation and envisages merely placement of the employees in the higher pay scale for the grant of financial upgradation only without grant of actual promotion. The benefit of the ACP as such is like granting non- functional in situ promotion.
13.At the cost of repetition, it must be borne in mind that the object of ACP is to avoid stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him. This is only to accord monetary benefit without disturbing any seniority or actually effectuating promotion to any higher post to avoid stagnation on a particular post or pay scale for a very long period.
xx xx xx
16.In Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ranjanna and Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.
17.It was further observed that fulfilment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non- functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e., only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.
18.In the aforesaid case, the employees were working as malis (Gardeners) and had claimed promotion in the higher pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal seized of the original applications observed that the employees cannot claim the scale of the next higher post by way of in situ promotion. On the matter being taken to the High Court by way of a writ petition, the contention of the employees was accepted and it was observed that the object of in situ promotion on non-functional posts, is to ensure that the group C and D employees are not stagnated in the same cadre/pay scale and that they should be provided with certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim for such nonfunctional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified and renders the order erroneous in law. The view so taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in the above referred Civil Appeals holding that the High Court has correctly analysed the object of the in situ promotion and fixation of pay scales to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation.
19.In view of the aforesaid legal position coupled with the fact that the qualification of graduation prescribed is for the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer rather than for the grant of in situ promotion on the non-functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which is purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the appeals cannot be sustained. It is accordingly hereby set aside and that the judgment of the writ court dated 28.11.2017 is restored. The appellants are extended the benefit of ACP, as directed by the writ court.”
(emphasis added)
A reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.03.2025 in Parmanand’s case (supra) wherein the following was observed:
“6.Explicitly, the object of framing the Rules of 1998 as well as the Rules of 2008 was to ensure that no Government servant stagnates without any financial upgradation for more than 10 years unless he has already availed 03 financial upgradations in his career. It goes undisputed between the parties that these Rules are applicable to the respondents. The appellants have also not disputed the factum of the completion of requisite service tenure by the respondents for grant of 2nd/3rd ACP Scales, as the case may be. The sole objection, as set-forth by the appellants to deny the above-said benefit to the respondents, is that they had not cleared/passed the departmental test/exam for the post of 'Kanungo'. However, they (appellants) have not denied the fact that some similarly placed 'Patwaris' were granted ACP Scales by exempting them from clearing/passing the departmental test.
7.In Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has relied upon the observations made by the Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr (supra) and has held that "the qualification of graduation was prescribed for the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer rather than for grant of in-situ promotion on the nonfunctional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which was purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post and the appellants were to be extended the benefit of ACP".
8.It is worth-while to mention here that while answering the reference in Kamlanand Thakur v. The State of Bihar and others, 2025(1) SLR 695, the Full Bench of Patna High Court has also relied upon the afore-quoted verdict of the Apex Court and has observed as under:-
"48.Thus, the questions stand answered as follows :-
(A.) Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, requiring passing of Departmental Accounts Examination for promotion, is not applicable in case of grant of A.C.P. benefits under the A.C.P. Rules, 2003;
(B.) Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 is confined to passing of preliminary examination/final examination in Accounts only for the purpose of confirmation, crossing the efficiency bar and promotion to Selection Grade only and not for regular promotion;
(C.) Rule 4(5) of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003 even though provides that the prescribed requirements and mode of sanction of financial progression under the scheme (A.C.P. scheme) shall be the same which are prescribed under the Recruitment/Service Rules for regular promotion against vacancies and if the Rules/Resolutions prescribe passing of Department Examination or any qualification for promotion, that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme will not affect the claim for grant of A.C.P. after completion of twelve/twenty four years of service for the reason that such financial progression under the A.C.P. scheme is only in situ promotion and nothing more. This is even notwithstanding any such requirement of passing any Departmental Examination or acquiring any educational qualification for promotion under the Service/ Recruitment/Promotion Rules."
The above-quoted observations, as made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors (supra) and by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Kamlanand Thakur (supra), are fully applicable to the instant appeals and in view of these observations and also the fact that some 'Patwaris', who were similarly placed, have been exempted from passing the afore-referred exam/test and have been granted the benefit of ACP Scales, it is held that the respondents-writ petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of ACP Scales on account of their not having cleared/passed the departmental test/ exam for the post of 'Kanungo'.
9.As a sequel to the fore-going discussion and in view of the findings as recorded by learned Single Judge(s), we are of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and valid reason/ground to interfere with the impugned judgments. Resultantly, the appeals in hand, being sans any merit, stand dismissed accordingly.”
(emphasis added)
Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of this Court in CWP No.5031 of 2024 titled as ‘Umed Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.07.2026.
In the present case, the petitioner was denied the 3rd ACP in view of Rule 8 of the ACP Rules, 2016, as he was not eligible for promotion to the post of ESHM. However, such stipulation falls contrary to the ratio culled out in Amresh Kumar Sinha’s case (supra) and Parmanand’s case (supra). It is also clarified that the reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ikbal Singh’s case (supra) is totally misplaced as the same was dismissed for non-prosecution, thus, any observations made therein cannot be considered to be made in consideration of the merits of the case.
CONCLUSION
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed in the following manner:
The impugned order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-24) is set aside.
The respondents/competent authority are directed to extend the benefit of 3rd ACP scale to the petitioner with effect from the date the petitioner has completed 24 years of regular service. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the arrears at the rate of 6% per annum. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Needless to say, in case the respondents deviate from the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.