IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27598 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.P.YOOSUF, S/O.K.K.PAREETH MOULAVI, AGED 54 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF MUSLIM EDUCATION, O/O.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11 /01/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27598 of 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.A1/40699/2003/DPI OF R2. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.A1/43263/03/DPI OF -DO- EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/18489/03 OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.62895/93/03/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDN. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.28491/83/05/G. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.69999/83/05/G. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/104891/2000/DPI OF R2. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D6-18676/97/DPI OF R2. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF 1997 PAY REVISION. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE -DO- 2006 PAY REVISION. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.O&M5/53266/2007/DPI OF THE DIRECTOR. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE DUTY AND JURISDICTION OF IMES. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PAY REVISION PROPOSAL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27598 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Selection Grade High School Assistant (Arabic). Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for selection to the post of Inspector of Muslim Education, he applied and was selected. Consequent to such selection he was appointed by Ext.P2 order. Neither in Ext.P1 nor in Ext.P2 the scale of pay of the post was mentioned. However, he was sanctioned the scale of pay of only Rs.5500-9075, which was lower than the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade High School Assistant (Arabic). According to the petitioner, the post of Inspector of Muslim Education carries the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 as per 1997 pay revision orders and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get that scale of pay. The petitioner represented to the Government in the matter but succeeded only in getting his pay he was earlier receiving in the post of High School Assistant (Arabic), Selection Grade, protected. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this W.P.(c)No.27598/06 2 Court seeking the following reliefs: “(a) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-4, P-6, P-8 and P-11 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to the extent the petitioner is denied the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 to the petitioner for the post of Inspector of Muslim Education for High Schools. (c) direct the 1 st Respondent to consider and pass orders upon Exhibit P-14 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit and in the meantime”. 2. The petitioner's contention is that in the pay revision order, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P15, there are two posts of Inspector of Muslim Education referred to. One carries the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 and the other carries the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075. According to the petitioner, the first category applies to Inspector of Muslim Education other than Women Inspector for Muslim Girls Education and the second category applies to Women Inspector for Muslim Education although it is not so mentioned therein, but is discernible from other documents W.P.(c)No.27598/06 3 which he has produced. He submits that this is abundantly clear from Exts.P17, P18 and P19 as well as Ext.P12 appointment order issued to two Women Inspector for Muslim Girls. The petitioner further contends that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired in 2007 and therefore if the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075 is accepted as the scale of pay applicable to the post to which he was appointed, then he would draw much lesser retirement benefits than what he would have received in the post of Selection Grade High School Assistant (Arabic). The post of Inspector of Muslim Education is to be filled up by transfer from among first grade High School Teachers or by promotion from second grade teachers in Government Schools having qualifications prescribed therein. Therefore evidently post of Inspector of Muslim Education is considered as a post either equal to or higher than that of first grade High School Teachers is his submission. The petitioner therefore submits that he is entitled to be sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 as applicable to the first post of Inspector of Muslim Education, mentioned in the pay revision orders. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The W.P.(c)No.27598/06 4 contention therein is that since there are two posts of Inspector of Muslim Education in the pay revision order, the petitioner can be inducted only into the entry cadre that is the post of Inspector of Muslim Education bearing the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075 and only on promotion to the higher scale of pay he would be eligible to the higher scale of pay. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Evidently there is an anomaly in this matter. Admittedly, there are two posts with the same nomenclature mentioned in the pay revision orders. The first is that of Inspector of Muslim Education bearing the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 and another post bearing the same designation bearing the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075. The Government pleader could not bring to my attention any special rules or other rules which would go to show that the post of Inspector of Muslim Education in the higher scale of pay is a promotion post to the post of Inspector of Muslim Education in the lower scale of pay. On the other hand I find considerable merit in the contention of the petitioner that the post of Inspector of Muslim Education in the lower scale of pay must be the one intended for Women Inspector for Muslim Education. This is clear from Ext.P12 and W.P.(c)No.27598/06 5 P17 to P19. By Ext.P12 the DPI has passed orders appointing two Inspectors for Muslim Girls Education in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075, who are persons appointed from among the senior most primary teachers. By Ext.P17 the State Public Information Officer of the Director of Public Instruction has intimated the petitioner that there are three posts of Women Inspector for Muslim Education and six posts of Inspector of Muslim Education. The qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different. The qualifications for Women Inspector for Muslim Education as stated in Ext.P17 is lower than that of Inspector of Muslim Education. From Ext.P18 it is clear that in the particular service there are actually six posts of Inspector of Muslim Education and three posts of Women Inspector for Muslim Girls Education. This is further clear from the fact that Ext.P19 extract from pay revision report, refers to six posts of Inspector of Muslim Education in the higher scale of pay and three posts of Inspector of Muslim Education in the lower scale of pay. The Government pleader could not satisfy me that there is any separate cadre of Women Inspector of Muslim Girls Education in the service. Therefore clearly, although it is not specifically mentioned in those orders, the Inspector of W.P.(c)No.27598/06 6 Muslim Education in the lower scale of pay mentioned therein denotes Women Inspector for Muslim Girls Education. Evidently the petitioner cannot be appointed as Women Inspector for Muslim Girls Education since that post can be filled up only for women candidates. Further going by Ext.P17, the qualifications prescribed for Women Inspector for Muslim Girls Education are far lesser than that applicable to Inspector of Muslim Education. Therefore it must be presumed that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Inspector of Muslim Education in the higher scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550. Therefore evidently there is a clear anomaly in the orders in question which requires to be suitably corrected. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be sanctioned scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 instead of Rs.5500-9075. Consequently he would also be entitled to be paid arrears of pay as also revised retirement benefits accordingly. Orders in this regard shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.27598/06 7