D E O KOLLAM Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal by the respondents in OP No. 27878/1999 challenging the judgment dated 13/10/2006. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, now a pensioner. He entered the service of the appellants as Lower Division Clerk on 24/01/1962 in the Education Department. Then he was only a graduate. While in service, he acquired B.Ed. degree and got qualified to be appointed as a High School Assistant. On 05/02/1968, he was appointed as a reserved teacher in a leave vacancy in Government High School, Chathanoor. On 29/03/1968, he was reverted back to the clerical cadre. On 04/06/1968, he was posted as High School Assistant on permanent basis at Government High School, Kollam. He was granted time bound higher grades on completion of 13 years and 20 years with effect from 01/07/1983 and 01/07/1988 respectively. While so, he retired on superannuation on 31/03/1993. On 05/06/1999 he filed Ext. P1 representation to the appellants stating that he is entitled to count the service in the clerical cadre for granting Selection Grade which would fall due on completion of 25 years of service. By Ext. P2 dated 12/1071999, Ext. P1 was rejected stating that the respondent had not completed 25 years of service as graduate teacher and hence he is not eligible for the Selection Grade as per the existing rules. Assailing Ext. P2, he preferred the above writ petition. The appellants in the counter-affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, General Education Department contented that the petitioner has not completed 25 years as a graduate teacher and hence he is not entitled to selection grade which could be granted only on completion of 25 years. In the first paragraph of the impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge observed:

(2.) We heard the learned Government Pleader Smt. T.B. Remani and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Even by the observations made by the learned Single Judge which is quoted above, the respondent had not actually completed 25 years of service as a graduate teacher. There is nothing on record to show that even without completing 25 years of service, respondent or similarly placed persons are entitled to a further grade namely, Selection Grade. Though, it is pleaded in the petition that the respondent is entitled to count the service as L.D. Clerk for granting grade as a graduate teacher, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he is not pressing that plea. If that be so, as specifically found by the learned Single Judge, including the provisional service, the respondent was in the service of the appellants as graduate teacher only for a period of 24 years, 11 months and 21 days. He has not completed 25 years of service so as to entitle him a Selection Grade which would fall due only on completion of 25 years of service. So, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to grant Selection Grade and to disburse consequential benefits is not at all sustainable. Even if it is deemed that the respondent had completed 25 years of service by rounding the period, he is not entitled to get the salary of the Selection Grade Teacher, because the salary in the cadre as Selection Grade Teacher could be drawn only from the 26th year onwards. Since the petitioner was not in the service beyond 25 years he is not entitled to fix the salary as Selection Grade Teacher or to get the consequential benefits. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is overlooking all these factual and legal aspects, the writ petition was allowed. We find that the impugned Judgment is not legally sustainable as the relief granted is contrary to law and facts. It is liable to be set aside.