Case: State Of Punjab And Anr Vs. Kirpal Singh Bhatia &amp; Ors

letter dated 23 July, 1957 meant that a teacher who passed Bachelor of Teaching examination would be entitled to be appointed a Master and on being so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay. With regard to the letter dated 7 November 1958 which stated that 25 per cent posts of B.T./B .Ed. Masters in Rs. 110-250 grade should be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers who were in lower grade, counsel for the State contended that teachers who were qualified by possessing B.T. B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to get 25 per cent of the posts provided the respective posts according to their subject combination were vacant.7. Rule 10 entitles the teachers to such scales of pay as may be authorised by the Government from time to time. The letter dated 23 July, 1957 shows that teachers who possess the degree of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent on 1 May 1957 will be entitled to scales of pay mentioned therein. Those who will pass the examination of Bachelor of Teaching thereafter will be entitled to their revised scale of pay with effect from the date they pass the examination.8. The contention of the State that there was not to be a mass increase of scale of pay is unsound. Teachers who possessed degrees became entitled to scales of pay according to category A.The High Court rightly referred to the letter of the Secretary of the Department dated 24 September, 1957 that teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications would hence-forth be placed in category A.9. The High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the scale of pay of Rs. 110-250 would be effective either from the date when the teachers would pass the examination of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent or 1 May, 1957, whichever is later. The High Court, however, gave the teachers the scales of salary confined to a period of 3 years and 2 months counting back from the date of the presentation of the writ petition. In other words, the High Court did not allow the teachers any claim prior to 1967.10. The letter dated 7 November, 1958 was necessary because in spite of the revised grade of Rs. 110-250 having been granted to Bachelor in Teaching or equivalent thereof, they were not being appointed by process of promotion to the posts of Masters. The letter stated that "selection is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, due regard being paid to good reputation regarding character, popularity among students and parents and capacity to maintain discipline". The respondents claimed that according to the letter those of them who were Bachelor in Teaching or Bachelor in Education were entitled to be appointed to the posts of Masters. The teachers could not claim vacancies by promotion exceeding 25 per cent. Their claim for appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not merely their seniority but also their merit. This percentage of 25 as fixed by the letter is covered by Rule 7(ii) and the principle of selection for appointment is covered by Rule 7 clause (iii). Therefore, the earlier letter dated July 23, 1957 fixed the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications. The subsequent letter dated 7 November, 1958 recognised the right of promotion to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent.The High Court said that the contention of the State that the teachers could not be considered for promotion unless they satisfied the condition of subject combination namely, that if they were ordinary graduates with training qualifications, they must have studied two out of the four subjects, namely, History Geography, Economics and political Science is not supported by the letter dated 7 November, 1958. The High Court rightly said that the letter does not speak of any limitation of subject combination for promotion.11. Some of the teachers were from time to time promoted to the posts of Masters but never continuously beyond a period of six: months. After completion of six months, there was a break to avoid continuity in service for the posts of Masters beyond six months. The State contended that the teachers could not be considered for promotion unless the Board were satisfied that the teachers if ordinary graduate with training qualifications must have also studied two out of four subjects of History, Geography, Economics and Political Science. The teachers on the other hand contended that once the State Government had taken a decision as embodied in the letter dated 7 November, 1958 the policy of not allowing the teachers to continue beyond six months on temporary basis was nullifying the letter and spirit of the decision of the letter dated 7 November, 1958. The teachers also contended that the promotion of teachers to Masters is completely independent of any consideration like the combination of subjects. The High Court rightly held that letter dated 7 November, 1958 was subject only to two limitations. One was that teachers could not claim more than one fourth of the vacancies of the posts of Masters and the other was that the claim by way of promotion would be considered by the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The High Court rightly held that the letter dated 7 November, 1958 was not subject to the condition of subjects combination being fulfilled. There are three categories of teachers-Science Masters, Mathematics Masters and Social Studies Masters. No condition of combination of subjects can be read into the letter of 7 November, 1958.The second conclusion of the High Court is correct that the teachers were to be treated as serving in that scale of pay continuously and not on six months basis.12. The third conclusion which the High Court arrived is correct that the teachers were to be considered for appointment to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent quota as recognised for their category of teachers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit without being subjected to the condition of subject combination.13.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The contention of the State that there was not to be a mass increase of scale of pay is unsound. Teachers who possessed degrees became entitled to scales of pay according to category A.The High Court rightly referred to the letter of the Secretary of the Department dated 24 September, 1957 that teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications would hence-forth be placed in categoryHigh Court rightly came to the conclusion that the scale of pay of Rs. 110-250 would be effective either from the date when the teachers would pass the examination of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent or 1 May, 1957, whichever is later. The High Court, however, gave the teachers the scales of salary confined to a period of 3 years and 2 months counting back from the date of the presentation of the writ petition. In other words, the High Court did not allow the teachers any claim prior toletter dated 7 November, 1958 was necessary because in spite of the revised grade of Rs. 110-250 having been granted to Bachelor in Teaching or equivalent thereof, they were not being appointed by process of promotion to the posts of Masters. The letter stated that "selection is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, due regard being paid to good reputation regarding character, popularity among students and parents and capacity to maintain discipline". The respondents claimed that according to the letter those of them who were Bachelor in Teaching or Bachelor in Education were entitled to be appointed to the posts of Masters. The teachers could not claim vacancies by promotion exceeding 25 per cent. Their claim for appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not merely their seniority but also their merit. This percentage of 25 as fixed by the letter is covered by Rule 7(ii) and the principle of selection for appointment is covered by Rule 7 clause (iii). Therefore, the earlier letter dated July 23, 1957 fixed the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications. The subsequent letter dated 7 November, 1958 recognised the right of promotion to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent.The High Court said that the contention of the State that the teachers could not be considered for promotion unless they satisfied the condition of subject combination namely, that if they were ordinary graduates with training qualifications, they must have studied two out of the four subjects, namely, History Geography, Economics and political Science is not supported by the letter dated 7 November, 1958. The High Court rightly said that the letter does not speak of any limitation of subject combination forHigh Court rightly held that letter dated 7 November, 1958 was subject only to two limitations. One was that teachers could not claim more than one fourth of the vacancies of the posts of Masters and the other was that the claim by way of promotion would be considered by the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The High Court rightly held that the letter dated 7 November, 1958 was not subject to the condition of subjects combination being fulfilled. There are three categories of teachers-Science Masters, Mathematics Masters and Social Studies Masters. No condition of combination of subjects can be read into the letter of 7 November, 1958.The second conclusion of the High Court is correct that the teachers were to be treated as serving in that scale of pay continuously and not on six monthsthird conclusion which the High Court arrived is correct that the teachers were to be considered for appointment to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent quota as recognised for their category of teachers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit without being subjected to the condition of subject combination.