IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1986 OF 2003 Between: Personal Manager, IDPL, Balanagar, Hyderabad and another .....Appellants AND Smt. V.Manjula .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 11275 of 1999 directing the respondents - appellants herein to put the writ petitioner - respondent in the time scale of Rs.2050-3550 with effect from 30.6.1998 and to pay all the consequential benefit and arrears within a period of two months from the date of receipt the order impugned, the present appeal is filed. The respondent herein joined as Telugu Pandit Grade – III on 1.8.1978 and promoted as Grade II in March 1982 and as Grade I in June, 1990 and as Senior Teacher in the scale of Rs.1950-3420 with effect from 30.6.1998. The case of the respondent is that since her claim for promotion as Senior Teacher Grade-I in the scale of Rs.2050-3550 was not considered, she made representations on 8.1.1999 and 5.2.1999 to appellants and to the District Educational Officer on 1.3.1999 and 27.3.1999 contending that previously several Graduate Teachers including Smt. Sarojini Devi Mishra were promoted in the said scale in terms of time bound promotion policy. It is also her case that for all purposes, Language Pandits Grade-I are included in the Memorandum of Settlement relating to Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Teachers of IDPL High School and by a wrong interpretation, the Language Pandits Grade I are downgraded and denied the promotional scale. The case of the respondents, as can be seen from the counter, is that the B.Ed. Teachers will go upto the scale of Rs.2050-3550 after completion of eight years of service but since the petitioner does not have qualifications equivalent to B.Ed., she was promoted to the scale of Rs.1950-3420 after completion of eight years of service in the scale of Rs.1400-2400 and in furtherance of the policy, the respondent was promoted as Senior Teacher with effect from 30.6.1990 in the scale of Rs.1950-3420 and denied the scale 2050-3550 inasmuch as she does not have B.Ed., qualification. It is specifically stated that the teachers, whose reference is made to by the respondent possess B.Ed., qualification. It is further the case of the appellants that the Memorandum to which reference is made by her, does not include language Pandits. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition observing that the only reason in denying the scale to the respondent is that previously she approached the Court challenging the promotion of her junior as Head Master and making representations for promoting her as Headmistress and to put her in the promotion scale applicable to Senior Teachers Grade-I. It is further observed that in the absence of any categorization of possessing and not possessing B.Ed. qualification, the petitioner cannot be denied the pay scale applicable to a Senior Teacher Grade-I in the very same school and consequently, directed as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that before recovery could be effected from Smt. Sarojini Devi Mishra, whose case is referred to by the respondent herein, she died and as such, the respondent herein cannot lay her claim apart from the fact that she does not possess B.Ed. qualifications. It is not is dispute that the respondent does not hold B.Ed., qualification. It is also not in dispute that Smt. Sarojini Devi Mishra, to whom the scale was granted, though not possessing B.Ed., qualification, died even before recovery could be ordered. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent cannot lay her claim on the basis of grant of pay scale to Smt. Sarojini Devi Mishra. Consequently, the respondent is not entitled for the seniority and the scale, as claimed. It is the specific case of the appellants herein that only the teachers possessing B.Ed. qualification were admitted to the scale claimed by the respondent and since the respondent does not possess B.Ed., qualification, she is not entitled to the relief sought for. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed __________________________ Justice Nooty Rama Mohana Rao December 26, 2011 MAS