E P JOHN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution by a private school teacher against the State of Travancore - Cochin complaining against the refusal to him of a higher initial salary under the Private Secondary School Scheme recently adopted by the State.

(2.) The petitioner was attached to St. Berchmans High School Changanacherry, continuously from 11.1.1933 until 21.5.1947 when he joined service in the St. Josephs High School, Piravom. This transfer of his service was with the consent of the Managers concerned and with a view to serve better the interests of the State Scout Organisation in which he was then functioning as the Deputy Organising Commissioner. It would appear that the management at Piravom undertook specially to continue his old service in the St. Berchmans High School and to transfer his provident fund contribution from that school. According to the petitioner he should be deemed to have put in a continuous service in the new school even from 11.1.1933 for purpose of fixing the higher initial pay under R.12(4) of the revised rules under the Private Secondary School Scheme. In view, however, of the definition of previous service contained in R.12(3), the petitioner was denied the benefit of the higher initial pay by order of the Director of Public Instruction dated 23.3.1955. His subsequent petition before the Minister for Education requisiting a review of the order was turned down by order dated 21.7.1955. Petitioner says that this R.12(3) is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and he is entitled to relief by issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ.

(3.) The respondent State has contested the petition by counter affidavit filed on its behalf, by the Assistant Secretary, Education, A&B Sections. The contention is raised that there was no undertaking by the present school of the nature pleaded by the petitioner, and that such undertaking even if true was irrelevant in the light of the distinction formulated under R.12(3) between continuous and non continuous service for purpose of a practical working of the scheme in question. The ground was also taken that the respondent State had no public duty or statutory obligation to satisfy the claim made by the petitioner who was only an employee of a private school.