G. JEYAKUMARI Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALLIYOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was originally appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 1/11/1997 in the 2nd respondent-School and on completion of 10 years of service, she was granted Selection Grade on 1/11/2007 in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Middle School Headmaster on 12/9/2010. While so, the 2nd respondentSchool was upgraded as High School from the academic year 2013-2014 and the services of the Teachers were also absorbed in the High School. Consequent upon the upgradation of the 2nd respondent-School, the post of Middle School Headmaster also stood converted as B.T. Assistant with effect from 22/3/2014 and she has been continuing in the said post. While so, on completing 10 years from the date of her promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, the petitioner made a claim for grant of Selection Grade in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-M) Department, dtd. 23/1/1986. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by Respondent No.1 by issuing the impugned proceedings dtd. 3/11/2020 on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner as Middle School Headmaster cannot be considered, as she was absorbed as B.T.Assistant with effect from 22/3/2014 and thus, she has not completed 10 years of service in the post of B.T.Assistant. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dtd. 3/11/2020, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.68, dtd. 23/1/1986, the services rendered in a lower post or over duty should not be taken into account as qualifying service in the higher post for advancement to the Selection/Special Grades and the services rendered in an equivalent or higher post and other duty alone should be taken into account for advancement to the Selection/Special Grades. He further contended that the posts of Middle School Headmaster as well as B.T.Assistant are equivalent posts and it is the respondents themselves having upgraded the 2nd respondent-School, absorbed the petitioner in the post of B.T.Assistant and she is noway benefited by the said absorption and as a matter of fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the nature of duties are same and the pay scale attached to the post of B.T.Assistant is lesser than the pay scale attached to the post of Middle School Headmaster and hence, his pay protection was granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, he strenuously contended that the petitioner is continued in the equivalent post for more than 10 years and as such, she is entitled for award of Selection Grade.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 contended that the duties and responsibilities of the posts of Middle School Headmaster and B.T.Assistant are different and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the service rendered in the post of Middle School Headmaster for the purpose of counting 10 years period in the cadre of B.T.Assistant for award of Selection Grade.