R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) FACTS giving rise to this petition for quashing Order dated 17th July, 1979 passed by Regional Deputy Director of Education, v. Region, Varanasi and for direction to opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 to pay salary and arrears in accordance with Government Order dated 3rd October, 1974 are that Petitioner was appointed as Part -time P.T. teacher in Vindhya Vidyapeeth Intermediate College, on 3rd January, 1955. From 16th November, 1958 to 11th February, 1959 he took refresher course of Physical Education at Rampur in pursuance of Local Service Training Order No. XII -1/2936/58/59 dated September 26, 1958/30th October, 1958 requiring an untrained P.T. Teacher to undergo training at Government College of Physical Education Rampur. After training he was appointed as a whole time P.T. teacher in the college in September, 1959 with the prior approval of District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur as by letter No. PEC/1102 -5/XVIH -264 (6) 57 -58 dated 6th June, 1957 it had been clarified that teachers after successful completion of physical training Refresher Course at Rampur were to be treated as fully qualified P.T. teacher. After his appointment in September, 1959 he was paid the salary in Junior Teachers Certificate grade but it was reduced in February, 1961 by the Committee of Management. Against this reduction Petitioner made representations but before it could be finalised he was suspended on 6th April, 1962 and his services were terminated on J 8th July, 1963. Against termination order Petitioner came to this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 3364/75 which was allowed by this Court on 25th November, 1976. In consequence of the order passed by this Court the Petitioner was reinstated but he was paid reduced salary. He, therefore, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools for fixing his salary in accordance with various government orders issued from time to time in respect of aided Schools and Colleges. On 3rd June, 1977 the District Inspector of Schools determined the salary payable to Petitioner in accordance with pay admissible to Drill Instructors. Against this order management filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education which was allowed by order dated 17th July, 1979. He fixed the salary of Petitioner treating him as an under -graduate and as untrained teacher. According to him since Petitioner had taken training only for three months he was not entitled to full salary of the P.T. teacher as requisite training should have been for one complete year. In counter -affidavit it has been stated that the Regional Deputy Director had already fixed salary of Petitioner by order dated 9th August, 1972. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it has been stated that besides Petitioner number of other P.T. teachers who were employed in various colleges of District Mirzapur and had taken three months' training like Petitioner at Rampur were treated by opposite parties as trained teachers and were being given the salary admissible to a teacher in C.T. grade. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the writ petition it has been stated that the Director of Education did not give any notice of appeal to Petitioner nor any notice was served on him. But he having come to know of it approached the Deputy Director of Education. Yet he refused to meet him nor did he afford any opportunity of hearing. It is stated that on 18th May, 1979 he sent a registered letter to opposite party No. 2 referring to what had happened on 9th May, 1979, the date fixed for hearing, and that he was prevented from appearing before him and further that no notice had been served on him. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 3. The allegations in the paragraphs mentioned, therefore, remained unrebutted. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of Committee of Management in paragraph 14 of which it has been stated that merely because some persons have wrongly been given benefit and order dated 21st January, 1965 was not applied to them could not entitle Petitioner for similar benefit. Allegations in respect of non service of notice or for hearing by the Deputy Director of Education have not been replied.
(2.) FROM what has been stated above it is apparent that the order of Regional Deputy Director of Education allowing the appeal against Petitioner cannot be maintained. It need not be emphasised that Regional Deputy Director of Education while hearing an appeal against order of District Inspector of Schools performs quasi -judicial function; therefore, no order could be passed by him without hearing the other side. The order is, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice. It is not necessary, however, to quash the 'order and direct him to decide appeal afresh because it is doubtful if the appeal was maintainable. Further salary of Petitioner was fixed by Inspector of Schools in 1977. Nine years have since then elapsed. This petition itself came up for hearing after six years. It would be too hard in the circumstances to remand it. Fixation of salary of a teacher is normally in accordance with various government orders issued from time to time. Petitioner's salary was fixed by District Inspector of Schools after his reinstatement. No rule or order has been brought to notice which may indicate that any appeal lies against such order. From paragraph 5 of a G.O. No. 480/XV -8 3099/73 dated 24th July, 1974, it appears the dispute in respect of fixation of salary has to be decided by the District Inspector of Schools. It is doubtful, therefore, if the Management could have filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. Even assuming the appeal to be maintainable the question is if the order passed by Deputy Director of Education can be maintained. The entire basis for his order is G.O. of 1965, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It is in reply to a letter No. E -I/9457/II -32(10), 64 -65 dated 24th October, 1984 regarding proposed revision of pay scale of physical training teachers who have undertaken refresher course for physical education, at Rampur. The order fixed the pay scale of such teachers on a lower scale. This letter obviously was not and should not be applied retrospectively. It could not effect pay scale of teachers fixed under earlier government order. The Deputy Director of Education was, therefore, not justified in reducing the pay scale of Petitioner in pursuance of this order. Further the view taken by Deputy Director of Education that Petitioner was not a qualified teacher as he had not completed one year's refresher course also does not appear to be justified. From copy of the letter dated 26th September, 1958 issued by Director of Military Education and Local Service Training, it is clear that the teachers were required to undergo training for three months and if such teacher successfully completed the training by attending the course they were to be employed as whole time P.T. teachers is their respective institutions. The Deputy Director, therefore, in treating Petitioner as untrained teacher acted against various orders issued from time to time. If the view taken by him is accepted it shall frustrate the purpose of refresher course. The claim of Petitioner appears to be well founded on Article 14 of the Constitution as well. It being admitted that teachers of other institutions who formed the same class as of petitioner as all of them were under -graduate and had taken refresher course and were being treated as fully trained and were paid their full salary, it was not open to Deputy Director to reduce the salary of Petitioner. Such an action cannot be countenanced as held by Supreme Court in Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1499.
(3.) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the opposite parties is quashed. The opposite parties are further directed to pay the salary of Petitioner in accordance with order passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur. The arrears of Petitioners salary which were directed to be kept in deposit in a separate fund by order dated 30th July, 1980 shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the authorities concerned. Parties shall bear their own costs.;