AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—In this bunch of writ petition (C.W.P. No. 440, 871, 1185, 1552 and 1820 of 1986) the Petitioners question the
legality, validity and constitutionality of the Government instructions dated August, 10, 1981 providing for categorization of Annual Confidential
Reports (ACRs) of the employees of the Education Department on the teaching side, on the basis of the results of all the subjects taught by them.
Equally at issue, are the orders superseding Petitioners Smt. Sarla Sharma (C.W.P. No. 440 of 1986) and Narender Nath Gaur (C.W.P. No.
1820 of 1986) by their juniors for promotion to next higher posts, and notices dated December 10, 1985, December 19, 1985 and January 1,
1986 (copy Annexure P. 2 in all the cases) effecting premature retirement of Petitioners Banarsi Datt (CWP No. 871 of 1986), Kewal Singh Rathi
(C.W.P. No. 1185 of 1986) and Nawal Singh (C.W.P. No. 1552 of 1986) respectively on the attainment of 55 years, age on the basis of
categorization of their ACRs in accordance with the above instructions.
A broad-brush factual backdrop will help illumine the contours of forensic controversy cropping up in these writ petitions.
Smt. Sarla Sharma, Petitioner, was working as a Lecturer in English in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Hissar. She had been
posted at Hissar since 1974. In February, 1985, the Director of School Education, Haryana, enquired of the Petitioner as to whether she was
willing to be promoted in Class II Service by joining in the State of Haryana wherever posted. The purpose of this communication was to ascertain
from the prospective candidates, who were due for promotion, whether or not they were willing to be posted anywhere in the State of Haryana
because most of the lady officials do not join their places of posting on promotion and some of them even forgo their promotions to avoid their
dislocation from their present places of posting. Such options were asked for from other eligible lecturers also. The Petitioner replied that she was
willing to avail of that promotion. In July 1985, some promotions were made to Class II Service from amongst the lecturers. However, the
Petitioner was superseded and some junior lady lecturers were promoted to Class II Service. Smt. Kamla Sikri, who was admittedly junior to the
Petitioner and was so shown in the seniority list of January 1980, was promoted by ignoring the claims of the Petitioner. The Petitioner represented
against her suppression but with no result. The Petitioner then learnt that she had been superseded in pursuance of the instructions dated August
10, 1981 (copy Annexure P.4) on the basis of the results of the subjects taught by her. She has averred that her ACRs. for the last ten years were
either good or very good and she had not been conveyed any adverse remarks. She has challenged that the prescription of the categorization of
the ACRs on the basis of the results is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Narender Nath Gaur, Petitioner, was working as a Social Studies Master in Government High School, Raipur Rani, Tehsil Naraingarh, District
Ambala. His case for promotion to the post of Lecturer, in History was sent to the Director, Public Instructions, Haryana. However, the
Petitioner''s claim was ignored and some persons who were junior to the Petitioner were promoted as Lecturer in History, on the ground that he
did not have 10 per cent good reports to his credit for the period of past ten years and in the face of the Government instructions dated August 10,
1981 (copy Annexure P-3) he could not be promoted.
Banarsi Datt, Kewal Singh Rathi and Nawal Singh, Petitioners, who were working as teachers, have been served with notices under Rule
3.26(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, read with Rule 5.32(A) and note thereunder of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II
(as applicable to the State of Haryana) for prematurely retiring them on their attaining the age of 55 years on the basis of their ACRs categorized
and down-graded in accordance with the impugned Government instructions.
The Respondents have contested the writ petitions and have justified the promulgation of the impugned instructions and the action taken on the
basis of categorization of the ACRs of the Petitioners in accordance with the criteria and categorization postulated by these instructions. Because
of the similarity of facts and identity of the legal issues, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
Shri Ram Kumar Malik, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has contended that the Government had prescribed a pro forma for recording of
the ACRs for the overall assessment and evaluation of a teacher/lecturer. Resultantly the reporting officer has to assess the teacher concerned with
reference to punctuality, performance, integrity, results of the subjects taught (and if the results are negative to what extent a teacher is responsible),
performance of duties outside the class, cooperation and relations with the headmaster/other teachers. So while indicating the overall gradation, the
reporting officer, has already taken into account the results of the subjects taught by the teacher. All the facts and aspects of a teacher''s personality
and performance are objectively assessed and reflected in the ACR. If there are any adverse reports, they are communicated to the teacher
concerned. Even remarks in the nature of advice are conveyed so that the teacher concerned can benefit from that assessment and try to improve.
The categorization of the ACRs on the basis of the results of the subjects taught by a teacher is wholly arbitrary, whimsical and extraneous to the
object to be achieved, i.e., the assessment of the real worth and capabilities of a teacher. The result of a teacher has already entered the
conclusions culminating in the overall gradation of the teacher. This one factor relevant for judging the worth of a teacher cannot be given undue
importance and taken into account twice--first at the time of recording the ACRs and then at the time of categorizing the ACRs. The result of a
class in a subject is not solely dependent on the ability, capacity and industry, of the teacher. Many other factors like the background of the
students, and their psychology play a major and sometimes a decisive role in the final result of the class.
So, the assessment and evaluation of a teacher, solely and even mainly on the basis of the results of the subjects taught cannot be termed to be fair
and reasonable. It is patently arbitrary and discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution. He further contended that in certain cases, the
ACRs after their categorization in accordance with the instructions dated August 10, 1981, become adverse reports. They are taken into account
while promoting teachers/Lecturers to the next higher post and for the purpose of judging the suitability of the teachers for their retention in service
after attaining the age of 55 years. Yet these reports are not communicated to the teachers concerned. This procedure is wholly arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice and has been frowned upon by the Highest Court in the land in various decisions.
Lastly, it was contended that the previous method of compiling the ACRs on the basis of the result of the subject taught by the teacher was more
rational.
The contentions raised by Shri Malik have not impressed us It may be mentioned at the very outset that the impugned instructions dated August
10, 1981 have been issued on the subject of promotion of Class III employees to Haryana Education Service Class II (School and Inspection
Side). The Petitioners in C.W.P. Nos. 871, 1185 and 1552 of 1986 have not pleaded in specific terms that the impugned instructions dated
August 10, 1981 were not applicable to their cases for determining their suitability for retention in service on their attaining the age of 55 years, nor
any such plea has been raised before us.
Generally speaking, the guidelines incorporated in the pro forma for recording the ACRs help reflect the personality, achievements and overall
performance of a teacher. They also help in highlighting the shortcomings, drawbacks and other deficiencies in the methods of teaching, general
performances and output of the teacher concerned. However, on the basis of the experience acquired over the years, it was felt that in many cases
the remarks regarding the overall grading of a teacher/Lecturer did not represent a balanced assimilation of the assessment regarding the various
facets of the teacher''s personality and his/her performance and output as noticed and recorded by the reporting officer. The overall grading of the
ACRs recorded by many of the reporting officers did not truly reflect the evaluation made by that very officer in relation to each or the items
contained in the proforma. It was, therefore, decided that the ACRs should be categorised by giving greater weight age to the results of the
subject/subjects taught by the teacher. Therefore, the impugned instructions dated August 10, 1981 were issued. It was directed that the ACRs
should be evaluated on the basis of the results of all the subjects taught by the teachers/Lecturers. It was illustrated that in case there were four
results of a teacher during the year and out of them, there were two results in the plus and two in the minus, then the grading of the ACRs was not
to be changed and in case three results were in the plus and one was in minus, then the grading of the ACR would be up-graded considering each
result as satisfactory. In case three results were in minus and one in plus, then the ACR has to be down-graded considering the results as
unsatisfactory. The new method of categorisation of the ACRs does not in any manner detract from the prime importance of the ACRs. No.
directions have been issued for changing the method of recording the ACRs. Those continued to be written as before. It is only at a stage when the
case of a teacher/Lecturer is to be taken up for his/her promotion to the next higher post or for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years, that
the ACRs are categorised in the light of the impugned instructions. The method has been devised to remove the shortcomings noticed in the
recording of the ACRs. The overall grading recorded by some of the reporting officers in a casual and even cavalier fashion resulted in presenting a
totally distorted picture about the ability/capacity and industry of a teacher leading to the promotion or retention in service of undeserving persons.
In order to select the best persons for the higher posts and to weed out the dead wood from the service a rational method for categorisation of the
ACRs on the basis of the results was introduced. It cannot be plausible argued that the assessment of a teacher, inter alia, on the basis of the
results of the subjects taught by him/her to the students is arbitrary, whimsical and extraneous to the object to, be achieved. The results of the
students taught by a teacher vividly reflect his ability, capacity and industry.
The Petitioners have not placed on record any reliable material or data, to establish in any particular case, that the results of the subjects taught
by any of the Petitioners were poor because of the psychological make-up or the social, economic and educational background of the students and
their families. Apart from some vague generalization recited in the writ petitions there is nothing on the record from which it may reasonably be
deduced that the poor result was pot because of the poor instructions imparted by the teacher concerned The ACRs for ten long years are
categorised.
The results in a single year are not the determining factor. Only if the results are negative for three years and the ACRs of a teacher are not good or
a better category, a teacher is down-graded to an extent that he/she may not be promoted or retained m service, if he/she is 55 years old.
Every section or class in a school is a fairly representative amalgam of students coming from various social and economic backgrounds. It is
circuit to concede that all or most on the students in a. class or section taught by a particular teacher for a particular year can be nit-wits un-
receptive to or incapable of learning anything. A resonator gritted teacher is bound to produce good results if he/she diligently imparts instructions
to his/her class or section of the students. The students in the schools nave impressionable minds which can be molded and developed and
improved by the inspiring instructions imparted by the teachers. It cannot be accepted, as contended by Shri Malik, that there are in every class at
least some students who happen to come from homes where the parents are illiterate or are leading unhappy marital lives or belong to economically
weaker sections, who are not good at studies and do not take interest in their studies or are incapable of learning what is taught to then. It a large
number of students of a class or section fail in a subject, then the teacher cannot escape the blame. Moreover, reports are downgraded only if the
pass percentage is even less than the pass percentage in the examination conducted by the Exercising body. So even a teacher whose result is
equivalent to the average results of the examination is not visited with any adverse consequences. It is only in the case of a teacher whose results
are even below average for three years out of the past ten years that his reports, are downgraded. Even then only the teacher, who had just a good
or average overall grading for that particular year when the result was below average, will suffer in real sense. If the overall grading was very good
or outstanding, then even down-grading by one step will not prejudicially affect the teacher.
Smt. Sarla Sharma, Petitioner, had remained posted as a teacher/Lecturer in English at Hissar, which is a District Headquarter. It cannot,
therefore, be said that she had to teach substandard students coming from illiterate and neo-literate families wholly innocent of English language.
We are fully convinced that the categorisation of the ACRs on the basis of the results is a rational method of judging the capacity/ability and
industry of a teacher for promotion to a higher post or retention in service beyond the age of 55 years.
The Respondents have appended with their written statement the summary of the Annual Confidential Reports of Smt. Sarla Sharma,
Petitioner, for the past ten years showing the grading, the results and the overall grading on the basis of the results. These clearly establish that the
method devised for categorisation of the ACRs is fair and reasonable. For the year 1976-77 and 1977-78 the Reporting Officer had categorised
her as ''A'' and ''+A'' Her results in one subject were plus and minus in the other. Her overall grading, therefore, remained ''Very Good'' and
''Outstanding''. But from 1978-79 to 1982-83 she had consistently given, negative results. Even then for the year 1980-81, her grading had been
reduced from ''A Plus'' to ''Very Good''. However, her overall grading had been down-graded from ''B Plus'' to ''Average'' for the years 1978-79,
1981-82 and 1982-83, because her results in all the subjects were negative. Again, in 1983-84, though the grading in the ACR had not been
recorded and signed, yet on the basis of her plus pass percentage in three subjects and minus percentage in one subject, she was evaluated as
''Good''. This clearly demonstrates that the method of categorisation of the ACRs on the basis of the results of the subjects taught by a teacher is
not at all arbitrary, whimsical or discriminatory.
The Petitioners have not filed copies of any previous instructions so as to enable us to compare them with the impugned instructions and to
decide as to whether they were more rational and sub served the object better. In the absence of those instructions, we cannot comment upon
them and their comparative worth. Surely, in the absence of any such instructions, the impugned instructions cannot be termed to be harsher
towards the teachers.
The contention of Shri Malik that the ACRs down-graded on the basis of the results become adverse reports stems from a misconception of
the real import of the impugned instructions. The ACRs as such are not tampered with. Only for the purpose of promotion to a higher rank or for
the purpose of determining the suitability of a teacher for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years the ACRs are categorised on the basis of
the results. The results are already known to the teachers. The reports, if they are not otherwise adverse, have not to be communicated. So, the
non-communication of the categorisation does not in any way prejudice the teacher concerned.
In the sum, we are of the firm view that the impugned instructions for categorising the ACRs on the basis of the results of the subjects taught by
a teacher are not in any way arbitrary or discriminatory and they do not offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Malik has not
advanced any argument to show that the impugned action/orders of the Respondents in not promoting Smt. Sarla Sharma and Narender Nath
Gaur, Petitioners, or taking steps for prematurely retiring Banarsi Datt, Kewal Singh Rathi and Nawal Singh, Petitioners, suffer from any legal
infirmity or flaw.
For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in these petitions and dismiss the same but with no order as to costs.