TEJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Director Public Instruction (Schools), Punjab as contained in Endst. No. 10/104-71-I(1), dated Jan. 31, 1983 fixing her seniority at Sr. No. 284-A in the tentative gradation list of Headmistresses in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 dated Dec. 31, 1977, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The undisputed facts, briefly, are that the petitioner was appointed as officiating Headmistress in P.E.S. (Non-gazetted) Class III(b) School Cadre (Women Branch) in the pay scale of Rs. 250-10-350 by the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, vide order dated May 21, 1966, on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. On Nov. 1, 1966, she was allocated to the State of Punjab and she continued to work as Headmistress for about six years. On her representation, she was allocated to the State of Haryana on Oct. 4, 1972 in that capacity. Vide orders passed by the Director of Public Instruction, Haryana contained in Endst. No. 8/24-74-E-II(1), dated Jan. 1, 1975 the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-30-540/40-800 in H.E.S. Class III (Non-gazetted School Cadre). She was taken as such in the Punjab Education Department by transfer vide orders contained in Memo No. 657/EDII (2)-76/1416, dated Jan. 14, 1976, addressed by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Education Department to the director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Chandigarh. The order provided that the petitioner would make no claim whatsoever in the matter of seniority and would rank at the bottom. The Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his order dated Feb. 25, 1976, allowed her the pay scale of Rs. 300-25-450/25-500, although she was in a higher grade of Rs. 400-30-640/40-800 while in the service of the Haryana Government. On her representation, she was allowed the grade in which she was while in the service of the Haryana Education Department. However, it was made clear that she would have no claim whatsoever in the matter of seniority and would rank at the bottom of the seniority list of Headmistresses Class III (Nongazetted) and her seniority would be determined from the date of her joining in the State of Punjab. She was placed at serial No. 60-A in the seniority list of Headmistresses dated May 1, 1975. The tentative seniority list was revised on Dec. 31, 1977 and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 284-A. She was also placed in the pay scale of Rs. 300-25-450/25-600. She made representation against the order fixing her in the grade of Rs. 300-25-450/25-600 and placing her at Serial No. 284-A on the tentative seniority list. The representation filed by her was considered and rejected by the Director of Public Instruction (Schools), Punjab, vide orders contained in Endst. No. 10/104-71-I(1), dated Jan. 13, 1983 and this order has been assailed in this petition. It is unfortunate that respondent No. 2 did not take into consideration the Rules called the Punjab Educational Service Class III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955 (for Short, the Rules) framed by the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf. These Rules were framed for regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Punjab Educational State Service Class III (School Cadre) and were published in the Punjab Government Gazette Notification No. 31070-E.I dated May 30, 1957. Rule 2(c) of the Rules says that the "services" means the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre. Rule 6 says that the "Service" shall comprise the posts shown in Appendix 'A' to the Rules. Appendix 'A' provides for permanent and temporary posts for Men's Branch and Women's Branch. Headmistresses. Mistresses, District Inspectresses of Schools, Assistant Inspectresses of Schools for P.T. and Assistant Inspectresses of Schools for Domestic Science, etc. in the Women's Branch were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 250-10-350. This was the grade allowed to the petitioner when she had joined the service. Rule 7 provides for methods of recruitment. Post in the service can be filled by the following three methods :

(3.) For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds and respondent No. 2 is directed to refix the seniority of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 9(d) of the Rules. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.