KULDIP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is to quash the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education rejecting the plea by the Teacher who was working in Sanatan Dharam Bal Mandir, Karnal that she had not been paid the salary as per the Government scales although the school was receiving grant from the State and that she was entitled to secure the salary as per the scales provided by the Government. The impugned letter of the Director, Schools itself is cryptic which states that she could not be given "Equivalent Grade Certificate". It appears that the petitioner had been granted merely a lumpsum payment since the audit of the accounts of the Kothari Grant sanctioned to the school showed that Kuldip Kaur was appointed w.e.f. 5.2.1983, but she did not possess the prescribed qualification and that she had passed JBT from Maharashtra which was not recognized after September, 1981.

(2.) It is not in denial that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in school that obtained 95% aid from the Government. If the audit party had refused to release of a grant to a Teacher as per the Government scales, it was on the ground that her qualification was not sufficient and the JBT qualification obtained from Maharashtra was alleged by not entitled to be considered as valid. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the fact that the Director of School Education, Haryana had, in his proceedings dated 21.7.1984, regarding qualification of Teachers for making ad hoc appointment clarified that Teachers who had been terminated in obedience of instructions already issued relating to qualification would obtain re- appointment and cases of such persons whose qualification were required to be recognized would have to be sent to the Directorate for grant of Equivalent Grade Certificate. The said communication lists in S.No. 8, the qualification obtained from Maharashtra State Education Department as eligible for an Equivalent Grade Certificate. This could be noticed as applicable only in situations where the qualification was obtained after 3.11.1983, requiring such Equivalent Grade Certificate. Learned counsel points out that the JBT qualification has been obtained in this case from Maharashtra even in the years 1969-71 and therefore, even this requirement as prescribed in the letter would not be applied.

(3.) After hearing the arguments at the previous hearing on 25.3.2011, I had directed the State Government to give an affidavit on a contention raised for the first time in the reply to the writ petition that the petitioner was working on a non-sanctioned post and, therefore, she was not eligible for being granted the Government scales and for release of grant given by the Government. Learned counsel took time to file such an affidavit and it was posted for today. Counsel for the State has not filed the affidavit today and he seeks for further time. I do not find that any more indulgence is needed, for I was merely trying to require a substantiation to what was stated in the written statement that the petitioner was not in a sanctioned post. I must point out that even if at the time when the Director was declining to issue the Equivalent Grade Certificate, it was not stated that the petitioner was not on a sanctioned post. It must also be noticed that even the objection from the audit party was only on the basis that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification and if it were ever to be that the petitioner was occupying a non-sanctioned post, it must have been referred to in the audit report itself. I find no merit in the contention in the written statement that the petitioner was not in a sanctioned post.