IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 442 of 2006(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.10268/2002 Dated 05/01/2006 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN OP: --------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARGOD, P.O. VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD, LAKSHMI NAGAR, KANHANGAD. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP: -------------------------------- P. RATNAVATHI, W/O. DINACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT NILESHWAR, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, U.P. SCHOOL ASSISTANT, D.H.S.S., KANHANGAD. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No. 442 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 1st respondent was appointed in an aided school on 26.7.1971 as Upper Primary School Assistant. Before joining the aided school, she was worked in a Government school as PD Teacher for six months and 30 days from 2.9.1970 to 31.3.1971. While granting higher grade, the above broken provisional service was also reckoned. Later, audit objection was raised against the grant of higher grade reckoning that service. Ext.P5 is the communication issued in this regard by the Deputy Director of Education, Kasargod, to the Headmaster of the petitioner's school. Challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed. In Ext.P5, the direction was to refix the salary ignoring the provisional service and also to recover the arrears. Provisional service, if counted W.A. No.442/2006 - 2 - for increment, can be reckoned for computing the qualifying service for higher grade. The provisional service rendered prior to 1.10.1994 can be reckoned for increment, subject to certain stipulations. They are: i) the qualifications and method of appointment should be the same. ii) the scale of pay should be identical 3. There is no dispute that the scale of pay in this case is identical. The method of appointment in both the cases is by direct recruitment. So, we think, both the conditions are satisfied in this case. So, the service rendered by the respondents in a Government school as P.D.Teacher on provisional basis can be reckoned for higher grade also. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly interfered with the impugned order. We find no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps