KAILASH CHAND GIAN CHAND JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Middle J.V. Grade in school run by Respondent No. 3 on 25th October 1950in the pay scale of Rs. 55-3-85-5-130. Respondent No. 4 Shri ML. Gupta was appointed as teacher in the Matric J.BT. Grade w.e.f. 15th July 1952 in the scale of Rs. 68-170. Since the petitioner was nonmatriculate at the time of his appointment, he was given the Middle JV. Grade pay scale whereas since Respondent No. 4 was a Matriculate be was given a higher rate and Matriculate J.B.T. Grade. Later on in the year 1952, the petitioner passed his matriculation and therefore, he was fixed in the higher grade, the same as of Respondent No. 4 i.e. Rs. 68-170 w.e.f. 15th July 1954. The pay scales were revised from time to time from 1959 onwards and since the pay of the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 was fixed in the revised pay scale, though they were in the same Grade and scale there was difference in their pay because of the initial lower scale of the petitioner, Thus though in the year 1972. both the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 were in the scale of Rs. 165-350, the petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs. 230.00 whereas the Respondent was drawing basic pay of Rs. 245.00 . In April 1973, a post of Headmaster fell vacant and it was decided by the school to fill up this vacancy by selecticn. A Selection Committee was appointed which interviewed the candidates. Apart from other candidates, the Selection Committee inteiviewed the petitioner and the Respondeut No. 4 for appointment to this post.

(2.) However, the Selection Committee could not come to a final decision and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to officiate as Headmaster of the school w.e.f. 1-5-73. Respondent No. 4 felt aggrieved by this officiating promotion to the petitioner as an Acting Headmaster and, therefore, made a representation to the Education Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that since he was appointed in a higher grade before the petitioner, he was senior to the petitioner in the higher grade and therefore be was entitled to a promotion as Headmaster and not the petitioner.

(3.) In view of the representation of Respondent No. 4, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, wrote back to Respondent No. 3 that senior most person is to be appointed as Headmaster under the rules and directed them to take immediate action to appoint Respondent No. 4 as Headmaster, failing which they threatened to stop the aid that was being granted to the School. The Respondent No. 3 therefore, appointed him Headmaster in place of the petitioner.