C.W.P No. 15290 of 2005 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 15290 of 2005 Date of decision : January 12, 2009 Raj Rani, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner has claimed entitlement to the JST grade on the ground that she had improved her qualification, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in CA No.4861 of 1998 on 6.11.2003. It is not disputed that the petitioner joined on six months basis on 22.2.1973 but three days later she left to join in a strike, when admittedly her services were initially terminated. She acquired higher qualification on 27.11.1973. C.W.P No. 15290 of 2005 ::2:: Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on the strength of her initial appointment which was validated ultimately by reappointing the striking teachers, it should be deemed that she acquired higher qualification while in service. In my opinion, this is a completely fallacious argument. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not in service on 27.11.1973. Even in the subsequent order, whereby striking teachers were appointed, it was stipulated that the appointment shall take effect from the fresh date of joining. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that in the aforesaid matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “ Thus, in view of the matter that any teacher who was granted this pay scale was only those JBT teachers who were entitled to have a higher pay scale if they acquired qualification during the period of their service not prior to joining of the service.” In my opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner improved her qualification while in service. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'