Holding

A provisional promotion does not cause loss of lien; therefore, the respondents are entitled to promotion to Principal, Grade II.

Summary

The respondents, originally appointed as Masters and later promoted to Lecturers, were provisionally posted as Headmasters from 1974 to 1978. When the State of Punjab later denied them promotion to Principal, Grade II on the ground that their provisional Headmaster posting caused them to lose their lien on the Lecturer post, the respondents filed writ petitions which were allowed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a provisional promotion does not extinguish the lien on the original post, and the Cadre Controlling Authority cannot alter a cadre without the employee’s consent. Since the respondents were only provisionally promoted before the relevant rules came into force and no express provision or option was sought from them, they could not be denied promotion to Principal, Grade II. The Court dismissed the State’s appeals, finding no merit in the contention that the respondents lost their lien.

Issues considered

Whether a provisional promotion to Headmaster results in loss of lien on the Lecturer post.
Whether the State can lawfully deny promotion to Principal, Grade II on the basis of alleged loss of lien.
Whether the Cadre Controlling Authority may change an employee's cadre without consent.
Interpretation of the promotion rules and ratios applicable to Headmaster and Principal posts.

Subjects

service lawpromotionlienprovisional postingprincipal grade IIeducation departmentcadre controladministrative law

Judgment

r
1

...,. t STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. A
v.
TEJA SINGH AND ORS.

JANUARY 17,2007

[S.B. SINHAAND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] B

, . .., Service law:

Lien-Promotion of respondents to the post of lecturer-Provisionally
posted as Headmasters-Denied promotion to the post of Principal on the
premise of having lost lien on the post of lecturer-Held: Respondents were c
promoted on provisional basis-Hence have not lost their lien-Not to be
denied promotion to the post of Principal.

The respondents were appointed as Masters in the Education
Department. As they possessed Master degree, they were promoted to the
post of Lecturer. In 1974, they were temporarily posted as headmasters at
D
t their own pay. The respondents were denied the promotion to the post of
Principal, Grade II on the premise that they, having been promoted to the
post of Headmaster, lost their lien on the post of Lecturer.

They successfully filed writ petitions before the High Court. Hence E
these appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: The Respondents were promoted on provisional basis. It cannot,
therefore, be said that they lost their lien. Even the Cadre ControJJing F
Authority could not have changed their cadre without their consent. Even
otherwise having regard to the fact that they were provisionally promoted
to the post of Head master long before the rules came into force, in absence
of any express provision contained therein _or any option sought for, from
the respondents, they could not have been denied the benefit of promotion
to the post of Principal, Grade II. If such a contention is upheld, the same
G
would result in an absurdity. Rules must be considered in a reasonable and
pragmatic manner. [Para 8] [1107-D-F]
·-...... )_

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6401-6407 of
2000. H
1105
i t

1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) l S.C.R \'.:::

~ ~
A From the Judgments and Final Orders dated 10.7.2000 and 12.7.2000 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. Nos. 800/2000
in C.W.P. No. 12829/1995, 819-824/2000 in C.W.P. Nos. 10327, 7213/1995,
18164/1994, 9426, 7719 and 96011995 respectively

D.P. Singh, Shashank Moona and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants.
B
Manoi Swarup, Atulesh Kr. Anant, S.C. Paul, Roopa Paul, Mohinder )
.,,,
Singh, Rekha Pandey and Subhash Sharma for the Respondents. 'l'

c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. : I. The State of Punjab is before us aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10.7.2000 in LPA No. 800/
2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
-
dismissing the LPA arising from the judgment and order of a learned Single
Judge of the said Court in writ petitions filed by the respondents herein,
opining that their cases should be considered for promotion to the post of
D
Principal, Grade II. 1
1
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondents were
appointed as Masters in the Education Department of the State of Punjab.
As they possessed Master degree, they were promoted to the post of
E Lecturer. In or about 1974, they were temporarily posted as headmasters. A
sample copy of the order of such posting is in the following terms :

"The following Masters/Lecturers are hereby provisionally
posted at their own pay and grade on the post of Headmasters.
(P.E.S. III) Non Gazetted Men Branch. These postings are purely
F temporary and all are subject to the conditions noted below : :<
-< .
xxx xxx xxx

G
3. They continued to work on the post of Headmaster till about 1978.
However, rules were framed in terms whereof the posts of Principal, Grade
II were to be filled up by way of promotion as also by direct recruit in the
.
ratio of 75 : 25.
__.,.
4. It is stated that the State had issued a circular on or about 24th -i. l

January, 1977 laying down the ratio of 60 : 40 for filling up the posts of
H Headmaster/Lecturer. The respondents were denied the promotion to the
STATE v. TEJA SINGH [SINHA, J.] 1107

post of Principal, Grade II by an order dated 15.7.1995, inter alia on the A
premise that they, having been promoted to the post of Headmaster, lost
their lien on the post of Lecturer.

5. Writ petitions filed by the respondents have been allowed as noticed
hereinbefore. Letter Patent Appeals filed by the State of Punjab thereagainst
were dismissed. B
__. -,, 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in
view of the rules aforementioned the High Court could not have passed the
impugned judgment.

7. It is not in dispute that similar question came up for consideration c
before Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2441/1982
and Civil Writ Petition No. 4918/1996, wherein a similar contention raised by
the State had been rejected.

8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had followed the D
aforementioned decision. We do not find any reason to differ therewith.
' Respondents were promoted on provisional basis. It cannot, therefore, be
said that they lost their lien. Even the Cadre Controlling Authority could not
have changed their cadre without their consent. Even otherwise having
regard to the fact that they were provisionally promoted to the post of
Principal long before the rules came into force, in absence of any express E
provision contained therein or any option sought for from the respondents,
they could not have been denied the benefit of promotion to the post of
Principal, Grade II. If such a contention is upheld, in our opinion, the same
would result in an absurdity. All rules as is well known must be considered
in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. The respondents having been F
promoted to the post of Headmaster, which was pennissible at the relevant
time, cannot be denied the benefit of promotion to the post of Prindpal,
Grade II, although they held the post of Lecturer. Even otherwise, in our
opinion, denial of said benefit to the respondents would be unjust in law.
For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are
dismissed accordingly. No costs. G
D.G. Appeals dismissed .
•._. )_