Bal Raj, Tuli, J. - (1.) The petitioner entered Government service on Aug. 1, 1949, as a teacher in Government High School, Nabha. He was appointed in a B.T. cadre on permanent basis with effect from July 19, 1956. The petitioner was then B. A. B. T. in 1958-59, he obtained M.Ed. Degree from the Punjab University. With effect from November 1, 1966, the Lecturers Grade was allowed to those teachers who had Masters Degree in Arts and Science but no such grade was allowed to B.A.M.Ed. These instructions were issued by the Director of Public Instruction on March 16, 1968 The petitioner made a representation against the denial of the Lecturers Grade to B A. M E.ds, but the same was rejected in Jan., 1969, Having failed to obtain redress of his grievance from the respondents, the petitioner filed the present petition on July 29, 1970. The prayer made in the petition is that the respondents should be directed to grant Lecturers Grade to the petitioner with effect from the date on which the same grade was granted to other persons possessing M. A. or M.Sc. Degree.
(2.) Written statement has been filed by respondent 2 wherein it has been pleaded that B. A. M. Eds. are not considered at par with M. As. or M Sc S. whereas an M.AM.Ed., is considered at par with them. It is only M.A.M.Eds., who are allowed the Lecturers Grade. In reply to this written statement, the petitioner filed a replication with which he filed a copy of the notification dated July 4, 1969 where-in the pay scales provided for Headmasters and Headmistresses on the basis of their academic qualification were prescribed as under : "Rs. 300-25-450/25-600 for 1st and 2nd Class M.A. M.Sc. and M.Ed. Rs. 250-25-400/25-550 for 3rd Class M.A., M.Sc. and M.Ed." On the basis of this notification, it was claimed by the petitioner that he was entitled to the Lecturers Grade as he possessed M Ed. Degree. To the replication, a rejoinder has been filed by the respondents and permission to file that rejoinder was sought by filing Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7107 of 1970, which, came up for hearing before P. C. Jain, J., on Jan. 21, 1971, and the learned Judge directed that it should be heard by the Bench hearing the writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel have allowed this rejoinder to the placed on the record, the principal reason being that it gives a reply to the notification dated July 4, 1969, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner in his replication. This was a new fact brought on the record and was necessary for the respondents to rebut the same In this rejoinder, it has been pointed out that the notification dated July 4, 1969, was superseded by a notification of the Punjab Government dated Dec. 9, 1969, wherein the grades and qualifications of the Headmasters, Headmistresses and Lecturers were stated as under:- "Rs. 300-25/450/25-600 for 1st and 2nd Class M. A., M. Sc., M. A. M.Ed. and M. Com., and Rs. 250-25-550/25-453 for 3rd Class M. A., M. Sc., M. A. M. Ed., and M. Com." From the qualification described in this notification it is quite char that Headmasters, Head Mistresses and Lecturers holding M. A. M Ed. Degrees were entitled to the grades mentioned in the notification and not B. A., M. Eds. the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in paragraph 2 of this notification the words "M, A., M. Msc and M Ed " were mentioned which meant that persons holding M. Ed. Degree, whether they were M.As. or B.As. were at par. In the joinder it was mentioned that the rectification of this paragraph was under consideration in view of what bad been provided in the first paragraph of this notification. It appears that when the qualifications were changed in para 1 of the notification dated Dec. 9, 1969, the qualifications mentioned in the second paragraph were not scrutinised The Government issued another notification dated Dec., 21, 1970, substituting the words "M. A., M. Sc., M. A. M. Ed. and M. Com" for M.A. , M Sc and M. Ed.", in the second paragraph of the notification dated Dec. 9. 1969. It is thus apparent that the qualifications now mentioned in both the paragraphs of the notification dated Dec. 9, 1969, as amended, are the same, that is M. A. M. Ed., is entitled to the Lecturers Grade and not B. A, M Ed.
(3.) Main reliance has been placed by the respondents on the recommendation made by the Kothari Commission, in paragraph 466 at page 79 of that Commissions report relating to the staff in the J.B.T. Training School This paragraph reads as under:- "We recommend that the staff should hold besides the B Ed. Degree a Masters degree either in education or in academic subject and should be entitled to receive the same scale of salary in Arts and Science Colleges with two advance increments in recognition of their professional training." As is clear, this was only a recommendation made by the Kothari Commission and it was for the Government whether to accept it or not or whether to accept it in whole or in part. Originally two advance increments were allowed but, when the Lecturers Crade was revised, the practise of allowing advance increments was stopped. While accepting the recommendation of the Kothari Commission, the Government decided that M.A M. Eds. will be considered at par with M. As and M. Scs; and not B. A. M. Eds. The reason is obvious. Except in the Training Institutions, the M. Ed. Degree does not advance the knowledge of the holder of that degree in the subject which he otherwise teachers. In order to clarify my point. I may point out that a Lecturer in English holding the B.A. Degree does not obtain better knowledge of the subject of English and English literature by obtaining M Ed' Degree whereas he gets better knowledge of the subject and the English literature by obtaining the M. A. Degree in that subject. Tho Degree of M Ed. only equips the holder of that Degree with a letter method of leaching the subject but does not add to his knowledge of the subject that he teaches I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Government was within its rights to do so and correctly decided to equate M.A. M.Eds. with M.As. and M.Scs. in Arts and Science subjects. The argument now advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that M. Ed is a qualification in itself and the holder of the Degree has the better knowledge of the subject of teaching which is called the subject of Education in Training Institutes and that he should have been adjusted amongst the Lecturers in Education in the Training Institutes. I am afraid, the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy for that purpose. This Court is not the appointing authority of the Lecturers. That authority vests with the Punjab Government and if the petitioner has got a job in a school or a college other than a Training Institute, it is for him to continue there or not to continue but it is not open to this Court in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to direct the Government to appoint or adjust a certain Lecturer or a teacher In a certain institute. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;