- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri A. P Tiwari and Sri O. P. Chaurasia learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Shahi appearing for the respondent No. 6. Learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. A counter- affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 6 submitted that it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents No. 4 and 5 in view of the fact that they are not directly affected by the impugned order. Both the Counsels have prayed for final disposal of the writ petition. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14-5-2007 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi by which the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-8-2000 has been declared to be illegal and direction has been issued to the respondents to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner and further the educational certificate of the petitioner be verified by the District Inspector of Schools. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the writ petition are : The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher. J. T. C. grade by the Management vide appointment letter dated 15- 7-1968. The petitioner claimed fixation of his salary in L. T. grade which request was refused by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 3-12-1971. Subsequently in accordance with the Government order dated 3-10-1974 the petitioner's salary was fixed in L. T. grade with effect from 1- 11-1973. The petitioner was thereafter given selection grade of L. T. grade from 1-1-1986 and granted lecturer's grade from 1-7- 1992. The respondent No. 6 Ram Dular Rai was appointed as L. T. grade teacher on 1-11-1971. The petitioner represented to the District Inspector of Schools that he be treated to be appointed in L. T. grade from the initial date of appointment (i. e. from 15th July, 1968 ). The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 1-8-2000 allowed the prayer of the petitioner to treat his appointment in L. T. grade with effect from 15-7-1968 and further on the basis of ten years teaching Inter classes the petitioner was sanctioned the Lecturer's grade from 1-7-1992. The respondent No. 6 submitted representation before the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education against the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-8-2000. In his representation the respondent No. 6's case was that by allowing L. T. grade to petitioner from 15-7- 1968 the seniority of the respondent No. 6 shall be affected hence the said order be set aside. The respondent No. 6 filed writ petition being writ petition No. 39660 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26- 7-2006 directing the Regional Director of Zone to decide the representation by speaking order. The respondent No. 6 submitted detailed representation on 2-8-2006. In his representation the respondent No. 6 prayed that the order dated 1-8-2000 of the District Inspector of Schools be declared illegal and incorrect fixation of salary of the petitioner be corrected according to the Government order and the certificate of the petitioner of I. G. D. Bombay in original be called and verified. The Joint Director of Education after receiving the representation issued notice to the Management as well as to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply before the Joint Director of Education and the Joint Director of Education after considering reply passed the impugned order dated 14-5-2007. The Joint Director of Education by the impugned order held that the fixation of salary of the petitioner by order dated 1-8-2000 is incorrect. The Joint Director of Education held that the petitioner was entitled for suo moto promotion in C. T. grade and after ten years according to the Government order declaring the C. T. grade as dying carder, petitioner should have been granted L. T. grade and thereafter after teaching of ten years of higher secondary classes, ought to have been given the L. T. Selection grade.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order contended that although the petitioner's appointment was approved in J. T. C. grade by the District Inspector of Schools but the petitioner's appointment was made for teaching High School classes and the said appointment ought to have been approved from very beginning as appointment in L. T. grade. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Principal of the Institution has given the certificate that the petitioner was teaching High School classes. LEARNED Counsel further contended that the petitioner was entitled for fixation of salary in L. T. grade in accordance with the Government order dated 12- 11-1955 and the petitioner represented for grant of L. T. grade in the said Government order but the petitioner was not granted the benefit of fixation of salary in L. T. grade and was given the said benefit only from 1-11-1973. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-8-2000 was justified by the learned Counsel. He further contended that the petitioner full fills the qualification of appointment of Assistant Teacher in Trained Graduate grade, he having passed diploma in I. G. D. Bombay. LEARNED Counsel submits that by the impugned order the Joint Director of Education illegally cancelled the fixation order dated 1-8-2000 and has directed for recovery of salary from the petitioner. Sri K. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 refuting the submissions of the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was not qualified for appointment as teacher in L. T. grade and he was not possessing the qualification for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher at the time of appointment. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not passed the Intermediate High School with "pravidhik Kala" and he had not passed the I. G. D. Diploma Bombay. The certificate submitted from one D. A. V. College of petitioner having passed I. G. D. Bombay cannot be relied. Since no certificate has been issued by the issuing authority. It is contended that the petitioner was not entitled even for fixation of salary in L. T. grade teacher from 1-11-1973 in view of the Government order dated 3-10-1974. The case of the respondent No. 6 is that at best the petitioner is entitled for fixation of pay in C. T. grade from 1-11-1973 and there after was to be treated absorbed in L. T. grade after C. T. grade was declared as dying cadre. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no error in the order passed by the Joint Director of Education directing correction of fixation of pay of the petitioner and recovery of excess salary. It is further contended that the petitioner was not appointed for teaching High School classes rather the petitioner was appointed to teach junior classes and he did not teach High School classes nor was entitled for fixation of salary in L. T. grade from 1-11- 1973.;