(1.) Both these writ appeals are by the State. We will first deal with Writ Appeal No. 2043/2005 where the necessary documents and pleadings are available. Disposal of this writ appeal will necessarily give quietus to the dispute raised in Writ Appeal No. 275/05 as well, we feel.
(2.) The State is aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has quashed Exts. P8, P9, P12 and P19 orders and issued a declaration that "all appointees to the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers and Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior) are entitled to salaries as per the pay scale admissible to them from the approved dates of their appointments". The learned Single Judge also directed the appellants herein to extend the benefit of Ext. P16 Government Order to petitioners 1, 5 and 6 within a time frame.
(3.) The submission of the Government Pleader is that Ext. P8 regulates payment of salary to the teachers appointed in Aided Higher Secondary Schools during the period up to 01/12/2001. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing them to be paid salary in a particular pay scale as if they are not admissible to the same. It is contended that the petitioners were appointed in the Aided Higher Secondary School sanctioned by the Government during the year 2000-2001 without due sanction of posts. It cannot therefore, be said that they did have a scale of pay to claim salary when creation of posts came far later as per Ext. P3 order dated 17/08/2001. They can claim salary only after approval of their appointment based on staff fixation orders issued pursuant to Ext. P3. The staff fixation order for the school was issued far later than their appointment, as per Ext. P14 order No. C4/2825/HSE/02 dated nil. Later, their appointments were approved only by Ext. P15 series orders on 09/08/2003. When the appointments were so approved on that date with effect from the date of their initial appointment, there was a condition as No. 4 which reads as follows: