STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, for declaration that he as J. B. T. teacher, is entitled to the grant of the selection grade as per order of the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, dated 31.8.1962/4.9.1962. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and may thus be noticed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on the averments that he was appointed as J. B. T. teacher in the erstwhile State of Pepsu on 2nd April, 1954 in the Government Primary School, Roshanpur, District Patiala, and on merger of the two States of Punjab and Pepsu, his services were taken over by the State of Punjab, with effect from 1st Nov., 1956. The plaintiff was awarded a special certificate as a trained teacher with effect from 1st March, 1959. It was averred in the plaint that the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, vide his order dated 31.8.1962/4.9.1962 granted to the plaintiff along with several others the selection grade of Rs. 120-175 with effect from 1st March, 1962, on the basis of seniority. The name of the plaintiff, according to the averments made in the plaint, figured at Serial No. 128. As per instructions of the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, the District Inspectors of Schools were to take immediate stepts to fix the pay of the officials concerned in accordance with the rules laid down in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I Part I and the payment was directed to be made to the plaintiff along with the others at a very early date. It was stated in the plaint that in spite of so many requests having been made, the plaintiff was not granted the selection grade and hence the suit The averments made in the plaint were denied and it was maintained that the plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of the selection gride as he was neither holding the permanent substantive post nor he was a trained teacher, and, therefore, he was not eligible for the grant of the selection grade. On the basis of the denial of the other averments on the merits of the case, the trial Court struck the following issues :

(3.) It was held under issue No. 1 by the trial Court the it the defendant-State failed to prove that there was any disqualification in the plaintiff as envisaged in Ex PI. In Ex. PI selection grade was to be granted to a teacher whose work and conduct was satisfactory and further that a teacher did not lose his seniority on account of transfer inter-division. Since no such disqualification was proved to have existed in the case of the plaintiff, Issue No. 1 was decided in his favour. Under issue No. 2, the suit was held to be within time. Under issue No. 3, it was held that the dismissal of the writ petition has n o effect on the suit as the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn a ad the same was not decided on merits. Under Issue No. 4 the suit was held to be maintainable. Under issue No. 5, the trial Court held that the name of the plaintiff was rightly entered in the list of selection grade teachers. While discussing issue No. 5, it was held that the plaintiff's name was very much there in the list of J.B.T. teachers who were held to be entitled to be promoted to a higher grade on the basis of selection grade, and that since none of the two disqualifications entered in Ex. P.l were found to exist in the case of the plaintiff, he was very much entitled to the grant of the selection grade. It was further found that no effort was made before the Court by the department concerned that there was any error of discrepancy or infirmity for which the plaintiff could be found to be not entitled to the grant of the selection grade which was sanctioned by the Director of Public Instructions. When the matter was taken up before the Appellate Court, in appeal, by the State of Punjab, the Government Pleader appears to have argued only one point that the name of the plaintiff-respondent was entered erroneously in the list. However, this argument was negatived by the 1st Appellate Court by recording a firm finding that the perusal of the list Ex. P.l evidenced that the plaintiff's name existed at Serial No. 128. It was further found that the State failed to show that the plaintiff incurred any disqualification ;in the shape of either his work and conduct being not satisfactory or the plaintiff lost his seniority. On the other hand, the statement of D.W. 1 Shri Ranjit Singh, Dumna, District Education Officer was referred to in the cross-examination whether any information was given to the plaintiff regarding the withdrawal of the selection grade given to him vide Ex. P.l. This witness could not produce any document from which he could state that the plaintiff was not-qualified to get selection grade. While confirming the findings on the other issues, the 1st Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court.