http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KIRPAL SINGH BHATIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1975

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2459            1976 SCR  (1) 529  1975 SCC  (4) 740  CITATOR INFO :  D          1984 SC1901  (6,9)  F          1985 SC1681  (2,4,5)  E          1987 SC1621  (1,2)  RF         1988 SC 892  (4,5,13)

ACT:      Punjab Educational  Services  Class  III  School  Cadre Rules, 1955-rr,  7 and  10 and  instructions issued  by  the Government from time to time Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      Promotion from  lower grades in the service to a higher grade is one on the methods of recruitment under r. 7 of the Punjab Educational  Service Class  III School  Cadre  Rules, 1955 Rule 10 of the rules states that members of the service would be entitled to such scales as may be authorised by the government from time to time.      The State  Government issued  letter dated  23rd  July, 1957 on  the subject  of revision  of  scales  of  low  paid government servants  in which  it was  stated that  the then existing scales  of  pay  of  certain  categories  of  posts should, with  effect from  1 May,  1957, be revised as shown therein.  In   that  letter   teachers  according  to  their qualifications were  placed in  categories A  and B, and the respective scales  o pay  to which  they were entitled were mentioned. The  letter dated  7 November, 1958 issued by the Deputy Director (Schools) to the Inspector of Schools stated that 25% of the posts of B.T./B.Ed. masters should be filled by promotion  from amongst  teachers working  in  the  lower grade who  have passed  the above  examinations and that the selection was  to be  made on  the basis  of seniority -cum- merit.      The respondents  who were  teachers were  promoted from time to  time as masters but were never allowed continuously beyond six  months to  avoid continuity  in service and were not given  the revised  scales.  They  claimed  the  revised scales of  pay as well as the posts of masters on the ground that they  had taken  the degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent,  that the  letter dated  23 July, 1957 which became effective  from 1  May, 1957  entitled  them  to  the revised grade  if  they  took  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Teaching or its equivalent and that the letter of 7 November 1958 entitled  them to the posts of masters to the extent of 25% on the vacancies.      The High Court allowed their prayers. In appeal to this Court it  was con tended by the State that (1) there was not to be  a mass  increase of pay of all teachers to that grade of pay  but what  the letter  dated 23  July, 1957 meant was that a teacher who passed B.T. examination would be entitled to be  appointed a master and on being so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay. and (ii) that according to the letter of  7 November  1958 teachers  who were  qualified by possessing B.T./B.Ed.  degrees would  be entitled to get 25% of the  posts provided  the respective  posts, according  to their subject combination, were vacant.      Dismissing the appeals, ^      HELD: The letter dated 23 July, 1957 fixed the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications while the letter dated 7  November 1958  recognised the right of promotion to the posts of masters to the extent of 25%. [533E]      1.(a) Rule  10 entitles  the teachers to such scales of pay as  may be  authorised by  the Government  from time  to time. Letter  dated 23  July,. 1957 showed that teachers who possessed the  degree of  B.T. Or  its equivalent  on 1 May, 1957 would  be entitled  to scales of pay mentioned therein. Those who  will pass  the examination  of’  B.T.  thereafter would be  entitled to their revised scale of pay with effect from the date they passed the examination. [532G]      (b) The  contention of  the State that there was not to be a mass increase of scales of pay is unsound. Teachers who possessed degrees became entitled to the scales of pay according to category A. [532H] 530      (c) The  High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the scale  of pay  would be  effective either  from the date when the  teachers would pass the examination of B.T. Or its equivalent or I May, 1957, whichever is later. [533B]      (2) The High Court rightly held that the letter dated 7 November, 1958  was subject  only to  two limitations namely (1) that  teachers could  not claim  more than one fourth of the vacancies of posts of masters, and (ii) the claim by way of promotion would be considered by the appointing authority on  the   basis  of  seniority-cum-merit.  No  condition  of combination of  subjects could  be read into the letter of 7 November 1958.  The High  Court was  also correct in holding that the  teachers were  to be  treated as  serving in  that scale of  pay continuously  and not on six months basis, and that the  teachers were  to be considered for appointment to the  posts  of  masters  to  the  extent  of  25%  quota  as recognised for  their category  of teachers  on the basis of seniority-cum-merit without being subjected to the condition of subject combination. [534A-D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1973.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  10th March., 197’’ of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 714 of 1970 and      Civil Appeals  Nos. 1411-1314,  872, 873, 1369 and 1582 of 1974.      F. S.  Nariman (In  C.As. Nos.  1109 and 1582), Harbans Singh (in  C.A. No.  1109/73) and  O. P. Sharma, (In all the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

appeals), for the appellants.      Hardyal Hardy,  S. K.  Mehta  and  M.  Qamarrudin,  for respondents No. 1 & 8.      V. C.  Mahajan, Urmila  Sirur, S. C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis, for  respondents Nos.  2-5, 9-12 and 15-21 (in C.A. No. 1109/73).      Urmila Sirur, for respondents 2-7, 12, 13, 15-18, 20-22 26, 27 30, 32-36, 38, 41, 44-46, 50-57 & 59-62 (In C.A. Nos. 1411-1412/ 74)  and for  all the respondents in (In C.A. No. 1414/74) Except  Respondent No.  113 and respondents Nos. 1. 3-16 and 18-23 (In C.A. No. 1369/74). F.      V. C.  Mahajan and  Urmila Sirur,  for respondents Nos. (All respondents  in C.A.  No. 872/74), and respondents Nos. 1, 2,  4-54, 5681,  83 and  85, (In  C.A.  No.  873/74)  and respondents Nos. 1-214 (In C.A. No. 1582/74).      Balak  Ram,   for  respondent  No.  245  (In  C.A.  No. 1582/74). G      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAY, C.J.-These  appeals are  by special leave from the judgment dated 10 March, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.      The respondents  were teachers  in the  former State of Pepsu. On  1 November, 1956 the former State of Pepsu merged in the  State of  Punjab. These  teachers claim  the revised scale of  pay as  well as the posts of Masters. Their claims are based  on these  grounds.  First  they  have  taken  the Degrees in  Bachelor of  Teaching or its equivalent. Second, the letter dated 23 July, 1957 which became effective from 531 1 May,  1957 entitles them to the revised grade if they took the Degrees  in Bachelor  of  Teaching  or  its  equivalent. Third, the  letter  dated  7  November,  1958  entitles  the respondents to  the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent of the vacancies.      The letter  dated 23  July, 1957  is addressed  by  the Secretary to  the Punjab  Government. The  letter is  on the subject: "Revision  of Scales  of pay of low-paid Government servants".  The   letter   states   that   after   carefully considering  the   recommendations  made   by  Pay  Revision Committee it  has been  decided that  the existing scales of pay of  certain categories of posts should, with effect from 1 May,  1957, be revised as shown therein. It is, thereafter stated that  it has been decided that all teachers according to their  qualifications should  placed in the following two broad categories:                         Category ’A’           B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Sc.  (Agriculture)  and  B.T./      Diploma in  Physical Education/Diploma  in Senior Basic      Training.      Category ’B’  consists of  four groups. The first group consists of  Matriculates  with  Basic  Training  (including Junior Teachers). The second group consists of Junior School Teachers (including  Assistant Mistresses  with  B.A./Inter- Matric Plus  J.A.V. Training).  Groups III  and IV  are also mentioned which  are not  relevant for the purposes of these appeals. Thereafter  the crucial  portions in the letter are these. For category ’A’ the scale of pay is Rs. 110-8-19/10- 250 with a higher start for M.A. Or M.Sc. as at present. The existing per  centage of  posts fixed  by Government for the scales of  Rs. 110-8-190/  10-250 and  Rs. 250-10-300 should remain  unchanged   at  85   per  cent   and  15   per  cent respectively.      It may  be stated  here that  the scale  of pay of Head Masters being  item (1)  in Appendix  is Rs. 250-10-350. The scale  of  pay  of  Masters,  Science  Masters,  Agriculture

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Masters,  Clerical  and  (Commercial  Master  and  Assistant District Inspector  of Schools  is Rs. 250-10-300. The scale of pay  of Second Master, Masters, Physical Training Masters Assistant  District   Inspector  of   Schools.   Agriculture Masters, Clerical and Commercial Masters and Science Masters being item  (2) is  Rs. 110-8-190-10-250 with a start of Rs. 126/- to  M.A./M.Sc./M.III/B  T.  and  Rs.  150/-  to  M.A./ M.Sc./M.Ed.(11)/B.T.  and   Rs.  150/-  to  M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. (11)/B.T’.      The second  letter on  which the respondents relied is. dated 7  November 1958.  This  letter  is  from  the  Deputy Director (Schools)  to the Inspector of Schools. The subject is: Promotion  of the  so-called unadjusted B.A. B.T./B.Ed., teachers to  the posts  of Master on Rs. 110/250 grade It is stated there that it has been decided that 25 Per cent posts of B.T./B.Ed.  Masters in Rs. 110-250 grade should be filled by promotion  from amongst the teachers working in the lower grade who have passed the B.A.. B.T./B.Ed. Examinations. The selection is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 532      Two of the relevant rules in Punjab Educational Service Class III  A school  Cadre Rules,  1955 which  were in force with effect  from 23 May, 1957 are numbered 7 and 10. Rule 7 speaks  of   the  method  of  recruitment.  The  methods  of recruitment are:  (a)  by  direct  appointment,  or  (b)  by transfer of  an official  from other  Services or  posts  of Government in  the Education Department of any Government in India, or (c) by promotion from lower grades in the service. The manner  of appointment  shall be  strictly by  selection etcetera as mentioned there. Rule 10 states that "members of the service will be entitled to such scales of pay as may be authorised by  the Government  from time to time. The scales of pay  in force  are specified in Appendix ’A’ against each post". Appendix  ’A’ is  an  appendix  to  the  Rules.  This Appendix mentions  Masters as  item No.  2. The scale of pay given in  item No.  2 for  the posts  of  Masters,  who  are ordinary graduates  with ’degree  of Bachelor of Teaching or equivalent thereof is Rs. 110-8-190/10-250 whereas for M.As. and M.Scs.  with the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Teaching  or Masters of  Teaching or  their equivalent,  the start of the grade is higher as already mentioned.      The letter  dated 23  July, 1957  revised the scales of pay with  effect from  1 May,  1957. These  appeals  concern teachers who are in category ’A’. The revised scale given to teachers  in  category  ’A’  is  Rs.  110-8-190/10-250.  Any teacher who would satisfy the test mentioned in category ’A’ would be entitled to the scale of pay.      Counsel on behalf of the State contended that there was not to  be a  mass increase of all teachers to that grade of pay but  the letter dated 23 July, 1957 meant that a teacher who  passed   Bachelor  of  Teaching  examination  would  be entitled to  be appointed a Master and on being so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay.      With regard  to the  letter dated 7 November 1958 which stated that  25 per  cent posts of B.T./B.Ed. Masters in Rs. 110-250 grade should be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers who  were in  lower grade,  counsel for  the  State contended that  teachers who  were qualified  by  possessing B.T. B.Ed.  degrees would  be entitled to get 25 per cent of the posts  provided the  respective posts according to their subject combination were vacant.      Rule 10  entitles the teachers to such scales of pay as may be  authorised by  the Government from time to time. The letter dated  23 July,  1957 shows that teachers who possess the degree  of Bachelor  of Teaching  or its equivalent on 1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

May 1957  will  be  entitled  to  scales  of  pay  mentioned therein. Those  who will pass the examination of Bachelor of Teaching thereafter  will be entitled to their revised scale of pay with effect from the date they pass the examination.      The contention  of the State that there was not to be a mass increase  of scale  of pay  is  unsound.  Teachers  who possessed degrees became entitled to scales of pay according to category ’A’.      The High  Court rightly  referred to  the letter of the Secretary of  the Department  dated 24  September, 1957 that teachers holding B.A., 533 B.T./B.A., B.Ed.  qualifications would hence-forth be placed in category ’A’.      The High  Court rightly came to the conclusion that the scale of  pay of  Rs. 110-250 would be effective either from the date  when the  teachers would  pass the  examination of Bachelor of  Teaching or  its equivalent  or  1  May,  1957, whichever is  later.  The  High  Court,  however,  gave  the teachers the  scales of  salary confined  to a  period of  3 years and  2 months  counting back  from  the  date  of  the presentation of  the writ petition. In other words, the High Court did not allow the teachers any claim prior to 1967.      The letter dated 7 November, 1958 was necessary because in spite  of the  revised grade  of Rs.  110-250 having been granted to  Bachelor in Teaching or equivalent thereof, they were not  being appointed  by process  of promotion  to  the posts of Masters. The letter stated that "selection is to be made on  the basis  of seniority-cum-merit, due regard being paid to  good  reputation  regarding  character,  popularity among  students   and  parents   and  capacity  to  maintain discipline". The  respondents claimed  that according to the letter those  of them  who  were  Bachelor  in  Teaching  or Bachelor in  Education were  entitled to be appointed to the posts of  Masters. The teachers could not claim vacancies by promotion exceeding 25 per cent. Their claim for appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not merely their seniority but  also their  merit. This  percentage of  25 as fixed by  the letter  is  covered  by  Rule  7(ii)  and  the principle of  selection for appointment is covered by Rule 7 clause (iii).  Therefore, the  earlier letter dated July 23, 1957 fixed  the scale  of  pay  on  the  basis  of  academic qualifications. The subsequent letter dated 7 November, 1958 recognised the right of promotion to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent.      The High  Court said  that the  contention of the State that the  teachers could  not be  considered  for  promotion unless they  satisfied the  condition of subject combination namely, that  if they  were ordinary graduates with training qualifications, they  must have  studied two out of the four subjects,  namely,   History     Geography,  Economics   and political Science  is not  supported by  the letter  dated 7 November, 1958.  The High Court rightly said that the letter does not  speak of any limitation of subject combination for promotion.      Some of the teachers were from time to time promoted to the posts  of Masters but never continuously beyond a period of six:  months. After completion of six months, there was a break to  avoid continuity  in  service  for  the  posts  of Masters beyond  six months.  The State  contended  that  the teachers could  not be  considered for  promotion unless the Board were  satisfied that the teachers if ordinary graduate with training  qualifications‘must have also studied two out of  four  subjects  of  History,  Geography,  Economics  and Political Science.  The teachers on the other hand contended

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

that once  the State  Government had  taken  a  decision  as embodied in  the letter dated 7 November, 1958 the policy of not allowing the teachers to continue beyond six months on 534 temporary basis  was nullifying the letter and spirit of the decision of the  letter dated 7 November, 1958. The teachers also contended  that the promotion of teachers to Masters is completely  independent   of  any   consideration  like  the combination of  subjects. The  High Court  rightly held that letter dated  7 November,  1958  was  subject  only  to  two limitations. One was that teachers could not claim more than one fourth  of the vacancies of the posts of Masters and the other was  that the  claim by  way  of  promotion  would  be considered by  the appointing  authority  on  the  basis  of seniority-cum-merit. The  High Court  rightly held  that the letter dated  7  November,  1958  was  not  subject  to  the condition of subjects combination being fulfilled. There are three categories  of teachers-Science  Masters,  Mathematics Masters  and   Social  Studies   Masters.  No  condition  of combination of  subjects can  be read  into the  letter of 7 November, 1958.      The second conclusion of the High Court is correct that the teachers  were to be treated as serving in that scale of pay continuously and not on six months basis.      The third  conclusion which  the High  Court arrived is correct  that   the  teachers  were  to  be  considered  for appointment to  the posts of Masters to the extent of 25 per cent quota  as recognised  for their category of teachers on the basis  of seniority-cum-merit without being subjected to the condition of subject combination.      The judgment of the High Court is affirmed. The appeals are dismissed.  The respondents  will be entitled to one set of costs. P.B.R.                                   Appeals dismissed . 535