(1.) The petitioners allege that they were appointed as Asstt. Urdu Teachers in various Junior High Schools some times around 1977. The petitioner no.1 alleges to have been appointed on last of February, 77 while the petitioner no. 2 alleges to have been appointed in 1973. Thus, it appears that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1973 and 1978. It is an admitted position that the petitioners' were given appointment under the scheme for creation of half a million job.subsequently, the Director of education , U.P. through his letter dated 14th December,84 addressed to all the district Basic Education Officers, U.P. had informed that there was a scheme, teachers like the petitioners, who are appointed in the primary teachers pay scale, were to be adjusted in the pay scale of High School Asst. Urdu Teachers from the earlier pay scale of primary school teachers on which they were initially appointed. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner were adjusted against the scale of rs.450-720/-. It appears that the petitioners were adjusted against such posts on 22nd January'85. Subsequently the petitioners were allowed selection grade scale of pay w.e.f. 1st January 86 on the ground that had completed 12 years, of service in terms of paragraph 7 of the Govt. Order dated 8th June'89. After such grant of selection Grade Scale of Pay, the petitioners were allowed to continue to draw such selection Grade of pay quite for some time. Thereafter, the respondents has stopped payment in the scale of selection Grade pay to the petitioners w.e.f.. June'1994. Mr. A.D. Prabhaker' learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no written order issued in this respect. The said stoppage of payment in the scale of selection Grade Scale of pay has been effected without giving any notice or without hearing the petitioners. According to him, after having guaranteed selection Grade scale of pay and having allowed to continue for such a long time, The same can neither be withdrawn nor the same can be stopped without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. On these grounds, he cLalms that it is admitted in the counter affidavit that there is no order in this respect, which is apparent from Annexure R.A.I to the rejoinder affidavit, by which the respondent themselves have admitted that no such order has been passed. Therefor, the petitioners should be allowed to continue in the Selection Grade Scale of pay.
(2.) Mr. K.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that grants of selection Grade scale of pay flow from the order dated 3rd June, 89, contained in Annexure IV. The petitioners do not qualify to be eligible for such selection Grade scale of pay under the said Govt. order. The grant of selection Grade scale of pay was a mistaken grant through inadvertence. Under the law, the petitioners are not entitled to such selection Grade scale of pay on account of their bing ineligible under the said Govt. order. According to him, the petitioners can seek inforcement of legal right through writ jurisdiction. The said legal right if alleged to have been on the basis of the said Govt. Order dated 3rd June, 89. If under the said Govt. Order, the petitioners are not eligible, in that event, there cannot be any legal right, which can be enforced through the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners cannot cLalm their right on the basis of a mistaken step taken in this regard. According to him, persons, who have been in one post for more than the stipulated period of 12 years, he is eligible for Selection Grade Scale of pay. In the present case, the petitioners were in the Scale of Rs.195 Rs.225/- when initially appointed. The scale of Rs.450-720/- was sanctioned only by virtue of the order dated 14th December,84 after creating the posts. Therefore, according to him, though the petitioners were adjusted against the new posts and in the new scale, the same does not confer any right in them to cLalm a benefit in view of paragraph 7 of the said Govt. Order dated 3rd June, 89. On this ground, he prays that the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard both the learned counsel at length.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in the scale of Rs.195-225/- persuant to a scheme for half a million job. It is rightly contended by Mr. Shukla that these posts were Ex-Cadre-Posts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were holding regular posts. Admittedly, the posts were created by the order dated 14th December, 84 contained in Annexure-2, against which the petitioners were adjusted. Scale for the said post were sanctioned as Rs.450- 720/-. Against these posts, and scale the petitioners were adjusted by the order dated 22nd January, 85, contained in Annexure III. Thus the petitioners, who were not holding regular appointments or posts, were adjusted against regular posts by the said order dated 22nd January,85 against a scale of Rs.450-720/-. The order dated 14th December, 84 contains several clauses for the purpose of creation of posts after containing informations from different schools and then to adjust those persons, who were appointed persuant to half a million job scheme, in the scale available to the Asstt. Teachers in the Junior High School from the scale of Primary Teachers.