- (1.) Having been non-suited by both the learned courts below, dismissing his suit for declaration, plaintiff has approached this Court, by way of instant regular second appeal.
(2.) Briefly put, the facts of the case, as recorded by learned first appellate court in para 1 and 2 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff was initially appointed as J.B.T. teacher on 1.6.1955 in the District Board School. The Local bodies and District Board Schools were provincialized and taken over by the then State Government of Punjab w.e.f. 1.10.1987 and consequently, the plaintiff used to enjoy the benefit of provincialized cadre. He was also confirmed w.e.f. 30.9.1957 and was given the grade of 60-125 w.e.f. 1.10.1957. The rules were framed for governing the services of the employee of the District Board and Local Bodies School. These rules were called Punjab Educational Services (Provincial Cadre) Clause (III) rules 1961 but these rules were applicable w.e.f. 1.10.1957. It is stated that the District Board and Local Bodies teachers were given the status of provincialized cadre which was a diminishing one. It is also stated that according to the rules, the teachers of the provincialised cadre were to be awarded selection grade after the completion of 18 years service. It is stated that the plaintiff was entitled to selection grade in his original cadre.
(3.) After the formation of the Haryana State, the services of the plaintiff were allocated to the State of Haryana. It is further alleged that in the year 1967, the State of Haryana decided to fill up the vacancies of Hindi teachers and the plaintiff applied for that post with due permission of the Education Department. He was selected and was offered appointment. It is stated that he made representation to the Education Department stating that he could not be disallowed and deprived of the benefit of the previous service in the cadre of provincialized teachers. It is stated that the plaintiff joined as Hindi teacher without break in the service on 9.6.1967. He preferred representation that he be allowed the selection grade after the completion of 18 years of service but to no effect. It is stated that his representation was rejected on 10.12.1980 by the Director School Education which was forwarded by him in the District Education Officer on 19.12.1980 vide his letter E-5-80/s/Grade/54/9512. This order has been impeached by the plaintiff on the grounds, first, that he cannot be denied the benefits of his previous service in the provincialized cadre. More particularly when he made a representation that he was ready to join as JBT teacher in the provincialized cadre and he may be reverted in that cadre. Secondly, that there is no law of land which deprives the person the benefit of one's service in the cadre and the plaintiff has been deprived selection grade without any reason or rhyme and it has adversely affected his promotional chances; third, that the order is penal in nature; fourth, that the plaintiff has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and the act of the authorities is mala fide and against the principles of natural justice. Since the defendants refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, he therefore, commenced this suit seeking declaration that the order dated 10.12.1980 endorsed to him vide order dated 19.12.1980 is illegal, void arbitrary and against the service rules and the plaintiff is entitled to selection grade after the completion of 18 years of service under the provincialized cadre or under the category of 15% of the cadre in Hindi teacher w.e.f. 1.4.1979 and further entitled to grant of special certificate of O.T. and correction in the seniority list.;