BASTI RAM Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of order dated 2.1.1995 (wrongly mentioned as 2.1.1994) Annexure A-8 vide which representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary( Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the grounds that petitioner does not fulfill the academic qualifications for the post in question, as such, there is no justification for releasing the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. He has also prayed that a direction be given to respondents No.1 and 2 to grant pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 to the petitioner from the date when he became eligible and entitled for the grant of pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. In alternative, he has prayed for grant of said pay scale to petitioner when it was granted to respondent No.3 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Tabla Instructor on 25.11.1960. The petitioner was qualified for the appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Fine Arts or Commercial Arts. The petitioner had passed eight years Degree Course in Music in the year 1981. The said degree is known as `Sangeet Parveen' or M. Music. He has relied copy of Degree Annexure A-1 for this purpose. The rules governing the appointment of Lecturers are Annexure A-2. The petitioner is eligible for the post of Lecturer as per the rules and is entitled for the grant of pay scale of Lecturer which has been granted to respondent No.3. The petitioner was deputed to conduct practical examinations in Music for the classes from PUC/ B.A.(III) of Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioner taught Music classes in Govt. Degree College, Sanjauli, Govt. Degree College Chaura Maidan and was paid honorarium. The petitioner was better qualified in comparison to respondent No.3 who has already been given pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. The petitioner was appointed as Table Instructor in the year 1960 whereas the respondent 3 was appointed as Studio Artist on 9.12.1970.

(3.) The petitioner had filed O.A. No.2800/1994 which was ordered to be treated as representation on 1.11.1994. The Secretary (Education) was directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law. The representation of petitioner was rejected on 2.1.1995 vide Annexure A-8. In these circumstances the petitioner had filed the petition.