LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus KIRPAL SINGH BHATIA & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A ll D F G 529 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. KIRPAL SINGH BHATIA & ORS . August 29, 1975 [A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] Punj(Ib Educational Services Class Ill Sc110.nl Cadre Rules, 1955-rr. 7 and 10 and instructions issued by the. Government fron1 time td time-Scope of. Promotion from lower grades in the service to a higher grade is one of the methods of recruitment under r. 7 of the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955. Rule 10 of the rules states that members of the service would be entitled to such scales as may be authorised by the govern- ment from time to time. The State Government issued letter dated 23rd July, 1957 on the subject of revision of scales of low paid government servants 'in which it was stated that the then existing scales of pay of certain categories of pasts should, with effect from 1 May, 1957, be revised as shown therein. In that letter teachers according to their qualifications were placed in categories A and B, and the re'Spective scales of pay to which they were entitled were mentioned. The letter dated 7 November, 1958 issued by the Deputy Director (Schools) to the Inspector of Schools stated that 25% of the posts of B.T./B.Ed, masters should be filled by promotion from amongst teachers working in the lower grade who have passed the above examinations and that the selection was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The respondents who were teachers v.~re promoted from time to time as masters but were never allowed continuously beyond six months to avoid conti- nuity in service and were not given the revised scales. They claimed the revis- ed scales of pay as well as the posts of masters on the ground that they bad taken the degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent, that the letter dated 23 July, 1957 '<Vhich became effective from 1 May, 1957 entitled them to the revised grade if they took the degree of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivaleni and that the letter of 7 November 1958 entitled them to the po~ts of masters to the extent of 25% of the vacancies. The High Court allowed their prayers. In appeal to this Court it was oon~ tended by the State that (i) there was not to be a mass increase of pay of' all tea:hers to that grade of pay but what the letter dated 23 July, 1957 meant . was that a teacher who passed B.T. examination would, be entitled to be appoint· ed a master and· on being so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay; and (ii) that according to the letter of 7 November 1958 tea-chers who were qualified by possessing B.T./B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to get 25% of the posts provided the respective· posts, according to their subject combination, were vacant. Dismissing the appeals, HELD: The letter dated 23 July, 1957 fixed the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications while the letter dated 7 November. 1958 recognised the right of promotion to the posts of masters to the extent of 25%. l533E] 1.(a) Rule 10 entitles the teachers to such scales of pay as may be autho- rised by the Government from time to time. Letter dated 23 July, 1957 showed that teachers who. possessed the degree of B.T. or its equivalent on 1 1\fay, 1957 would be entitled to scales of pay mentioned therein. Those who will pass -the examination of' B.T. thereafter would be entitled to their revised scale of H pay with effect from the date they passed the examination. [532G] (b) The conticntion of the State that there was not to be a mass in'crea!le of scales of pay is unsound. Teachers who possessed degrees became entitled to the scales of pay according to category A. [532Hj 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!976] ! S.C.R. (c) The High Court rightly came to the concl11Sion that the s~ale of pay would be effective either from the date when the teachers \vould pass the exami- nation of B.T. or it·s equivalent or 1 11ay, 1957, whichever is later. [533B1 (2) The High Court rightly held that the letter dated 7 November, 1958 was subject only .to two limitations, namely (i) that teachers could not claim more than one fourth of the vacancies of posts ot' masters, and (ii) lhe claim by way of promotion. would be considered by the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. No condition or combination of subjects could be read into the letter of 7 Novembei. 1958. The High Court was also correct in holding that the teachers were to be treat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.