JEMIMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows : Admittedly, even though the petitioner had undergone the nursery Secondary Grade Teachers'Training Course, which is not equivalent to the Secondary Grade Teachers'Training Course, she was appointed as Secondary grade Teacher in fourth respondent school. THE Government, by G. O. Ms. 564 (Education) dated 20-3-1978, by way of a policy decision, decided to abolish the cadre of Higher Grade Teachers, but at the same time protected the interests of the then working higher Grade Teachers and enabled them to undergo in service Training conducted by State Council for Educational Research and training (SCERT) so that they can be upgraded as Secondary Grade Teachers. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not having the Secondary Grade qualification at the time of her appointment, i. e. on 5-9-1979, which is subsequent to the passing of the G. O. Ms. No. 564 (Education) dated 20-3-1978, the petitioner could not be treated as Secondary Grade Teacher. However, the other two teachers, viz. Renuka Livingston and Priyanisha, who were appointed prior to the passing of the G. O. Ms. No. 564 (Education) dated 20-3-1978, were allowed to draw the same salary payable to the Secondary Grade Teachers without their undergoing the in-service course conducted by SCERT. But in the case of the petitioner and another teacher by name Joyee, who were appointed on 5-9-1979 and 4-10-1978 respectively, which were subsequent to the passing of the G. O. Ms. No. 564 (Education) dated 20-3-1978, while Joyee was permitted to draw the salary payable to the Secondary Grade Teachers as she completed the in-service training course, but the petitioner was not permitted to draw the salary payable to the Secondary Grade Teachers for want of in-service training course by G. O. Ms. No. 921 Education dated 30-9-1993. Hence the above writ petition.

(2.) MR. Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by the G. O. Ms. No. 564 Education dated 20-3-1978 the respondents are trying to cause a discrimination among the Higher Grade Teachers who were appointed prior to the passing of the said G. O. and those teachers who were appointed after the passing of the said G. O. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that when the Nursery Grade Teachers who are appointed in the social Welfare Department are being paid the same salary as that of the secondary Grade Teachers, the petitioners are entitled for the same salary of the Secondary Grade Teachers and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the writ petition.

(3.) I am also unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Nursery Grade Teachers appointed in the social Welfare Board are paid salary equal to that of the Secondary Grade teachers whereas the petitioner is being paid less salary and therefore there is discrimination between the petitioner and the Nursery Grade Teachers appointed in the Social Welfare Department in the matter of salary payable to them. The services of the Nursery Grade Teachers employed in Social Welfare department, viz. imparting education to the physically handicapped, crippled and mentally retarded children is quite different from the services of the petitioners and others who are employed in the ordinary schools. Therefore, the nursery Grade Teachers employed in Social Welfare Board is a special class by themselves and therefore I do not see any discrimination or unreasonableness in this regard. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that G. O. Ms. No. 564 Education dated 20-3-1978 causes a discrimination among the petitioner and the Nursery Grade Teachers employed in Social Welfare board also fails.