Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was appointed as a Librarian in Senior Secondary School. Hathur, District Ludhiana, on 13.3.1991, and is presently working as such, has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying that parity be ordered to be maintained between the teaching staff and the librarians and they be granted the same pay scale, status and promotional channels with all consequential reliefs.
(2.) THE petitioner had done her graduation from Panjab University, Chandigarh, in the year 1983 and thereupon she did one year diploma in Library Science in the year 1985 from Punjab University, Patiala. She did her M.A. in Punjabi from Panjab University, Chandigarh in the year 1988 and there after passed B.Ed. Examination from Panjabi University, Patiala in the year 1989. Thereafter she was appointed as Librarian in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2130/ - (revised pay scale of Rs. 4020 -6200). The submission of the petitioner is that she had been performing her duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. During the course of her duties she inter -acts with the students and even takes the library class of the students which had been duly prescribed for in the time table. While placing reliance on Rule 15 of the Punjab School Education Board (Matriculation Examination) Rules, 1988, it is contended that under Clause (a) of Rule 15.2, the Library Science is one of the subjects in which the Board can hold examination. In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that she is performing the duties similar to the teachers and as such the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits including the promotional avenues available to the teachers in their cadre. Upon notice, the respondents filed reply and contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian as she satisfied the prescribed qualifications. It was specifically disputed that the duties of a Librarian are in any manner alike to the duties and responsibilities of the teacher. In fact she had no experience as a teacher and, thus cannot be treated as part of teaching cadre and given consequential benefits including that of promotion in that cadre. The Board had not prescribed Library Science as a paper in the prescribed syllabus and in the time table the subject has been indicated only with an object that students could go to the library, read the books as a matter of habit and during a particular hour. According to the respondents there are no basis, whatsoever, for treating the petitioner as a part of teaching cadre which is a distinct and different cadre. However, it is conceded that there are no further promotions for a Librarian within the existing rules.
(3.) FROM the above narrated facts it is clear that the main controversy revolves on the issue whether the Librarians are discharging duties, functions and responsibilities, similar if not identical to that of teaches. The respondents have specifically disputed and there is no document on record to support the contention of the petitioner which could justify any parity with teaching cadre either of facts or on law. For the purposes of claiming parity in status, pay and cadre, the petitioner must satisfy the well settled conditions. The petitioner has not been able to show any rule under which the Librarians are treated as part of the teaching cadre nor there are any other instructions issued by the State. Even in common parlance it will not be appropriate to treat Librarians as part of the teaching cadre. It is a matter of fact and, thus, must be established as such. Ingredients cannot be inferred or gathered from attending circumstances. The onus is upon the petition to establish as a matter of fact that duties, responsibilities and functions of the Librarians are identical or similar to that of the teachers.;