- (1.) WE are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, on 6-3-2006.
(2.) THE controversy is between the appellant and the private respondent regarding promotion to a post which fell vacant on 2-4-2000. THE post was that of a lecturer in Sanskrit. THE private respondent had been appointed in 1982 and was working in C. T. grade until 1998 when by a deeming fiction in a statute which we mention below, she became an L. T. grade Teacher with effect from 10 years of completion of her service i. e. with effect from 1992. C. T. grade stands for certificate of teaching which would be available to diploma holders also and L. T. grade stands for licentiate of teaching which would be available only to Graduate Teachers. C. T. grade was in effect abolished from 1989. Pay equality was also ordered earlier but we are not concerned with those provisions. We are concerned with promotion and promotion only. It is the admitted position that the appellant became an L. T. grade Teacher upon regularisation only in the year 1993. The benefit of deemed L. T. grade status is claimed by the private respondent on the basis of Section 33-D of the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. The said Section is set out below: "[33-D. Special provision for Certificate of Teaching grade teachers.- Every teacher in the Certificate of Teaching grade, who is a trained graduate and, (a) has completed ten years' continuous satisfactory service in the said grade on or before January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from January 1, 1986; or (b) completes the said service of ten years after January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from the date of completion of the said service of ten years; be deemed to have been appointed in the Trained Graduate Grade. ]"
(3.) MR. Padia appearing for the appellant sought to rely upon a Full Bench decision of our High Court in the case of Smt. S. K. Chaudhari v. Manager, Committee of Management, reported at (1991) UPLBEC 250 and placed portions of the judgement to show that a statute is ordinarily to be construed as prospective in operation unless express words or necessary implication indicates otherwise. The express words in sub-section (b) of Section 33-D indicates that the obtaining of L. T. grade would be available to the employee concerned from the date of completion of ten years of service. As such, although the private respondent completed such ten years of service six year before this statutory provision was enacted, yet the statute clearly mentions that the benefit would be available to her from six years before the enactment. No principle of construction need be adopted. The words themselves are clear. It was then submitted for the appellant that the private respondent would be disqualified for promotion to a post which opened up only in 2000 because her real and factual service as an L. T. grade Teacher started only from 1998 and she would not be having the five year requisite continuous regular service in L. T. grade 'as such', which is required by Rule 14 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998. The said Rule is quoted below: 14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.- (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade, if any, who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post and have completed 'five years continuous' regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. ";