Chnnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) We grant special leave and having heard the learned counsel for the parties proceed to dispose of the appeals.
(2.) The appeals arise out of a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which is an aftermath of two earlier judgments of that Court. The appeal preferred to this Court against one of the earlier decisions was dismissed by this Court by a speaking order while a special leave petition filed against the other decision was dismissed by a non-speaking order. It appears that the Govt. of Punjab by its memorandum dated July 23, 1957 decided to reserve a quota of 25% of posts of Masters for a category of teachers already in service familiarly known in their service parlance as unadjusted B.A.,B.T./B.Ed. teachers'. Notwithstanding the memorandum, these teachers were not given the benefits flowing from the reservation and, therefore, a large number of them filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana claiming the status and emoluments of Masters. A single Judge of the High Court held as under: "The basis of their claim is the decision of the Director of Public Instruction, circularised vide letter dated Nov. 7, 1958. According to that letter, the teachers already in service having B.A., B.T. or B.Ed. degrees were to be given the Master's grade whenever the recruitment was to be made to the extent of 25% of vacancies while 75 per cent of the vacancies had to be filled by direct recruitment. The petitioners could compete for that recruitment but none of them appears to have done so. They could only lay claim to the 25% of the vacancies on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. There was requirement of subject combination in B.A. and, therefore, the selection from amongst the teachers possessing the degrees in B.A., B.T. or B.Ed. on the basis of subject combination was not in accordance with the rules and was in fact discriminatory which violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The category was of B.A., B.T./B.Ed. and no further selection could be made on the basis of subjects nor could the cases be referred to Punjab Subordinate Service Selection, Board for purposes of selection. The selection had to be made on seniority-cum-merit basis and not in merit-cum-seniority basis as seems to have been done. The petitioners were therefore, discriminated against. It has also not been stated who issued the instructions with regard to subject combination formula, which has occasioned the discrimination complained of. But no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this behalf as they did not challenge their supersession prompty and the teachers already promoted have not been made parties to this petition so that no order to their prejudice can be made herein. They are entitled to the relief that they should be considered for promotion to the 25 per cent quota in accordance with seniority-cum-merit formula, whenever vacancies arise in future ignoring the subject combination formula." The matter was carried in appeal to a Division Bench and in further appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeals were futile. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia, (1976) 1 SCR 529. It was observed by the Supreme Court: "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." Later another group of teachers also filed similar writ petitions, Nirmal Jit Kaur v. Union of India, 1972 Serv LR 809 (Punj) and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana following the general principle laid down in the earlier decision in Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case found that the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs which were given to Kirpal Singh Bliatia and others. A single Judge of the High Court accepted the writ petitions and granted the reliefs in the following terms: "(i) The petitioners and other members of their Class (unadjusted B.A., B.T./B.Ed. teachers) shall be appointed to the posts of Masters in the regular cadre to the extent of 25 per cent quota reserved for them for each year in accordance with the memorandum dated November 7, 1958 (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition) and after adjusting them in the cadre their salary and inter se seniority shall be fixed along with the other members of the service in accordance with the service rules, without affecting the rights of the members of the Service who have already been promoted; (ii) The petitioners are entitled to the higher grade of Masters Rs. 110-250 from the day they acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. degree or with effect from May 1, 1957, whichever is later, and (iii) The petitioners shall be paid the arrears of pay in the higher grade for a period up to three years and two months prior to the filing of their respective writ petitions in accordance with their entitlement." It appears there were abortive appeals to a Division Bench of the High Court and petitions for special leave to the Supreme Court.
(3.) Despite the directions in Nirmal Jit Kaur's case, a proper seniority list incorporating the names of the teachers who should have been promoted as Masters, at the appropriate places, on the dates when they acquired the requisite qualifications was not prepared by the Govt. of Punjab. The 'unadjusted teachers' had once again to approach the High Court for relief. A single Judge of the High Court gave a direction to the authorities to 'reframe the seniority list in accordance with the directions in Nirmal Jit Kaur's case without reference to any other judgment'. We are informed that an appeal preferred to a Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed in limine and that petition to this Court for grant of special leave was also dismissed. Thus the direction given by the single Judge and the High Court in regard to 'unadjusted teachers' in the State of Punjab became final.;