JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) B. M. LAL, J. The order delivered in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 2587 of 84 (Durga Prasad vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2598 of 84 (Smt. Rajkumari vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 1914 of 84 (Chandumal vs. Secretary Education and others), No. 2244 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 3387 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak sangh vs. State of M P. and others), No. 2142 of 84 (Smt. Ranu Bala vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2304 of 84 (Amir Singh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 1915 of 84 (Ram Swayamber vs. State of M P. and others), No. 2927 of 84 (Smt. Savitribai vs. State of M. P.), No. 16% of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), no. 1773 of 84 (Nand Kumar vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 872 of 85 (Jeevan Singh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 1144 of 85 (Ram Pratap Singh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 1217 of 85 (Purshottam Das and others vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 1057 of 85 (Harnam Toppoo vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 3011 of 85 (Munnalal vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 1936 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2161 of 84 (M P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2161 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2163 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2179 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M P. and others), No, 2182 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2344 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2564 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2817 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 3208 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 3399 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 79 of 85 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 81 of 85 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2130 of 85 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 3946 of 85 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 657 of 85 (Shankerlal vs. State of M. P. and others), no. 3249 of 84 (Prantiya Shashkiya Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P.), No. 2986 of 84 (Raghuwar Dayal vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2702 of 84 (G. L. Bopche vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2628 of 84 (Sukhnam Singh vs. State of M. P. and others), No, 2573 of 84 (Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M. P. and others), No, 2542 of 84 (Rajeev lochan vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 2245 of 84 (Ram Prasad vs. State of M. P. and others), No. 3300 of 84 (M, P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others) and no. 3495 of 84 (M. P. Shikshak Sangh vs. State of M. P. and others ). ( 2. ) THE present bunch of petitions presents a thought provoking picture regarding service state of affairs of teachers who are regarded as the character builders of our Nation belonging to intellectual class. Feeling oppressed because of wadding way of dealing with their service problems in changing their service conditions from time to time, creating mental unrest by the concerned authorities of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, a few of them being frustrated, have vindicated their grouse by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3. ) FROM time immemorial in our society, the role, duties and responsibilities of teacher-class, as a whole, are well recognised. A teacher-Guru, is in a position of loco parentis Whilst a pupil is in his care, some of the privileges of the natural parents are transferred to the teacher so that he may carry out his duties towards pupil as a prudent father would take. ( 4. ) NATURALLY, because of their unique social position, the teachers expect that they should be properly respected, regarded and compensated so that they may not have any tene or unrest in their mind towards service security so as to enable them to impart education with sense of honour and pride. ( 5. ) THE main contention of the petitioners in all these bunch of petitions is that since they were occupying the office of the Head Master in various Middle Schools and Primary Schools, should be treated as Head Master in accordance with the choudhary Pay Commission report in the scale of pay of Rs. 925-1500 and Rs. ( 5. ) THE main contention of the petitioners in all these bunch of petitions is that since they were occupying the office of the Head Master in various Middle Schools and Primary Schools, should be treated as Head Master in accordance with the choudhary Pay Commission report in the scale of pay of Rs. 925-1500 and Rs. 635-925, respectively in Middle Schools and Primary Schools, with effect from 1-4-1981 and the orders passed by the various Divisional Education authorities to their joining as Upper divisional Teachers (for short udt) and Lower Division Teachers (for short ldt), be quashed ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after performing duties as Head Master for a decade or more, they have acquired right to the office of Head Master of Middle schools and Primary Schools and therefore, without affording them any opportunity of being heard, slashing them to the lower ladder of UDT and LDT, results in violation of the provisions of Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Rule 12 of madhya Pradesh Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent service) Rules, 1960 and Rule 2 (vi) of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1983. ( 7. ) THE respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in their return, denying the relief as claimed by the petitioners in all the bunch of petitions, emerged with a plea that prior to 1-4-1981 there was no specific cadre prescribing separate pay scale of Head Master, either of middle Schools or Primary Schools, but there was only one Common cadre prescribing one scale of pay for ADIS/head Master/udt/instructors etc. Similar was the position of Primary School teachers consisting of one cadre of Head Master/idt. These posts were inter-changeable, being of one and the same cadre and therefore, if inter-changes take place in the same cadre, then the question of violation of the provision of Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or rule 12 of M P. Civil services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Rule 3 of M. P. Govt. Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Services) Rules, 1980 and rule 2 (vi) of M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, does not arise. ( 8. Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Services) Rules, 1980 and rule 2 (vi) of M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, does not arise. ( 8. ) AFTER hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the entire record placed before us by the respective parties and giving our anxious thoughts to it, we are of the opinion that because of the legal position, i. e. before 1-4-1981, for want of specific cadre prescribing separate scale of pay of Head Master of Middle School and primary School, these petitions deserve to be dismissed, for the reasons hereinafter discussed. ( 9. ) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that after enforcing the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 with effect from 1-4-1981, the petitioners are being ordered to work as UDT in Middle Schools and LDT in Primary schools, instead of Head Masters of their respective schools, amounts to reduction in rank, violating Article 311 of the Constitution of India. ( 10. ) A perusal of the orders directing the petitioners to work as UDT and LDT, does show that they were discharging their duties as Head Master of respective schools. But, the fact remains that prior to 1-4-1981 there was no cadre prescribing a separate scale of pay of Head Masters of Middle School, but there was only one common cadre and scale of pay Rs. 240-460 for ADIS/head Master/udt/instructors etc, as shown in Appendix II of M. P. Education Manual at page 162 and in accordance with Rules of Revision of Pay Rules, 1973 framed under Article 309 of the constitution of India, the above posts were interchangeable. ( 11. ) THE practice was that amongst the teachers posted in a particular school, whosoever was seniormost in that school, alone used to be asked to work as Head master on an allowance of Rs. 50/- for performing additional supervisory work in Middle Schools. ( 12. ) IN Primary Schools, similar position was existing, as there was common cadre and only one scale of pay i. e. , Rs. 160-300 for Head Master/ldt and amongst the teachers posted in a particular Primary School, whosoever was seniormost, used to be asked to work as Head Master on an allowance of Rs. 25/- per month for doing extra supervisory work. ( 13. 160-300 for Head Master/ldt and amongst the teachers posted in a particular Primary School, whosoever was seniormost, used to be asked to work as Head Master on an allowance of Rs. 25/- per month for doing extra supervisory work. ( 13. ) THEREFORE, prior to 1-4-1981, it is clear that there was no specific cadre prescribing separate scale of pay for Head Master of Middle Schools or Primary schools. Hence if in between the same cadre interchanges take place then the violation of Article 311 or that of any discrimination attracting Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, does not arise. ( 14. ) THE word cadre is denned in Rule 9 (4) of the Fundamental Rules thus : ""cadre" means the strength of service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. " therefore, according to the definition as well as its logical meaning which is being used in common parlance "cadre" cannot be construed to mean a post until and unless the strength of an establishment or service sanctioned as a separate unit prescribing a separate scale of pay, is demonstrated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners failed to draw our attention to any of the provisions particularly from the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, specially M. P. Revision of Pay Rules 1973, which are compiled in Madhya Pradesh Education Manual, applicable to the case of the petitioners, to show that there was a separate cadre prescribing separate scale of pay for Middle and Primary School Head Masters. Therefore, it has not been shown that the petitioners have been asked to work as UDT and LDT in Middle and Primary Schools, respectively, in breach of statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and hence if there is no breach of statutory rules, then in our opinion, there is no violation of Article 311 of the constitution and the submission as made on behalf of the petitioners that the orders directing the petitioners to work as UDT and LDT, violate the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, has no substance and is hereby repelled ( 15. ) IT is next contended on behalf of the petitioners that the orders directing them to work as UDT and LDT are violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also violate Rule 12 of 1961 Rules, Rule 3 of 1960 Rules and Rule 2 (vi) of Revision of Pay Rules 1983 and in support of this contention, relied upon the ratio laid down in C. C. Padmanabhan and others vs. Director of Public Instruction and others ( AIR 1981 SC 64 ), Baleshwar Dass and others vs. State of U. P. and others ( AIR 1981 SC 40 = (1980) - 4 SCC 226 ). A K. Subraman and others vs. Union of india and others ( AIR 1975 SC 483 ) and Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. General manager, M. P. S. R. T. C. , Bairagarh (Bhopal) and others ( 1978 MPLJ 694 ). In C, C, Padamnabhans case (supra) it was not disputed that Assistant Education officer carried a category and cadre having a higher grade than that of the post of high School Assistant and therefore these posts were not interchangeable. The post of assistant Education Officer was a post of promotion for High School Assistant. In that context Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that revision of persons occupying the post of Assistant Education Officer for a considerable time without considering other aspect, resulted in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But, such is not the position in the instant case, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, the decision in Padmanabhans case (supra) does not in any way help the petitioners. (b) In Baleshwar Dasss case (supra) the question involved was the competitive claims to seniority between three groups of Assistant Engineers belonging to the U. P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch), viz. , (i) Graduate Engineers directly recruited by the Public Service Commission, (ii) Graduate Engineers once appointed in numbers but later absorbed after consultation with the Public Service Commission and (iii) Diploma-holders later promoted as Assistant Engineers. The claim is for consideration of the entire period of officiation of temporary posts in substantive capacity for fixation bf seniority in the service. Therefore, according to Rule 23 of 1986 Rules, seniority in the service shall be determined according to the date of order of appointment. The claim is for consideration of the entire period of officiation of temporary posts in substantive capacity for fixation bf seniority in the service. Therefore, according to Rule 23 of 1986 Rules, seniority in the service shall be determined according to the date of order of appointment. But such is not the situation here in the instant case and as such Rule 3 of M. P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, has no application in the instant case as the cadre was the same and office of the head Master was not a promotion post and therefore, the ratio laid down in Baleshwar dasss case (supra) is distinguishable. (c) In A K. Subramans case (supra) it has been held that a cadre may consist only a permanent post or sometimes as is common these days, also of temporary post. Since A K. Subramans case (supra) deals an issue altogether different, it has no application to the facts of the present case and is quite distinguishable. (d) In Mahesh Chandra Guptas case (supra) the issue relates to the promotion post attracting provisions of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution which guarantees equality of opportunity to all the citizens in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. In the instant case, since the cadre carrying same pay scale and for additional supervisory work only allowance is provided, in such circumstances, violation of Article 16 of the Constitution does not arise and therefore, Mahesh chandras case (supra) does not advance the case of the petitioners. ( 16. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners then lastly made strong reliance on ramgopal vs. District Education Officer, Ratlam and others ( 1986 JLJ 30 ) of this court, wherein it appears that the allowance posts of Head Master of Middle School and that of Primary School, have been assumed to be of higher rank of promotion post for that of UDT and Middle School and LDT in Primary School and in that context applying rule 12 of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 and rule 3 of M. P. Govt. Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, it has been held that without affording any opportunity to them the Head masters of Middle Schools and Primary Schools are being posted as UDT/ldt in violation of the aforesaid Rules and also in violation of the provisions of Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But in fact, such is not the position in the instant case. As stated above, prior to 1-4-1981 there was only one cadre prescribing one scale of pay i. e. 246-460 for ADIS/head master/udt/instructors etc. and only allowance of rs. 50a per month was allowed to that seniormost teacher in particular school for discharging additional supervisory work in Middle Schools and the same was the position of Primary Schools where the scale of pay was Rs. 160-300 for LDT/head master was prescribed and whosoever was seniormost in a particular school, used to get Rs. 25/- per month as allowance for doing extra supervisory work. ( 17. ) THE aforesaid position changed consequent to the acceptance of the recommendations made in the Choudhary Pay Commission Report and a separate cadre of Head Master each for Middle School and for Primary School has been created by providing a separate scale of pay and therefore, UDT/adis/instructors etc. are only entitled to be posted as Head Master according to their respective seniority in the seniority list of earlier cadre i. e. ADIS/udt/instructors etc. maintained Division-wise, in the scale of pay Rs. 925-1500 in Middle School and the rest of the UDT and others, if do not come up in seniority list, would get scale of pay rs. 740-1140. Similarly, for Primary Schools, a separate cadre of Head Master having a separate scales of pay of Rs. 635-950 has been created and those who are seniors amongst lower division teachers in the seniority list, would be posted as Head Masters and the rest of the lower division teachers would get scale of Rs. 545-925. ( 18. ) THEREFORE, before coming into force of M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 the cadre and posts of Head Master/udt/adis/instructors etc. were interchangeable and similar was the position for Primary Schools. 545-925. ( 18. ) THEREFORE, before coming into force of M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 the cadre and posts of Head Master/udt/adis/instructors etc. were interchangeable and similar was the position for Primary Schools. Hence, merely by virtue of getting some allowance for extra supervisory work, the teachers occupying some supervisory post, the nomenclature of that post be of Head Master, will not give the right to claim the post by virtue of their working as Head Master, in Choudhary pay Commission as the same does not fit in the definition of cadre as provided under fundamental Rule 9 (4 ). This view is fully supported by the decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in P. G. Joshi and others vs. The Director General, Posts and telegraphs ( AIR 1975 SC 1 ). ( 19. ) IN P. G. Joshis case (supra) the posts of Wireless licence Inspectors and town Inspectors, to each of which a special pay of Rs. 30/- was attached, were held equivalent to those of clerks, the time scale of pay for all the three, being the same. The dictum laid down in P. G. Joshis case (supra) fully applies to the facts of the present case. It has been held that the posts of Wireless Licence Inspector and Town inspector are not of separate cadres from those of time-scale clerks and the provision for special pay of Rs. 30a which was only for special work for Wireless Licence inspectors and Town Inspectors, showed that they continue in the cadre of time scale clerks and therefore, it did not constitute a separate cadre and appointment to the post carrying special pay, does not constitute a separate cadre and thus there was no violation of Art 14 or 16 of the Constitution. ( 20. ) SIMILARLY, the office of the Head Master of Middle School and Primary school, prior to 1-4-1981 was not a post either temporary or permanent carrying specific rate of pay. Rule 9 (22)of Fundamental Rules defines permanent post thus : ""permanent post" means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned without limit of time. " likewise, "temporary Post" is defined under Rule 9 (30) of Fundamental Rules, thus: ""temporary post" means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time. Rule 9 (22)of Fundamental Rules defines permanent post thus : ""permanent post" means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned without limit of time. " likewise, "temporary Post" is defined under Rule 9 (30) of Fundamental Rules, thus: ""temporary post" means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time. " as stated, the office of Head Master prior to 1-4-1981 was being managed by granting allowance for doing extra supervisory work and if the same person occupying the post of Head Master in a particular School, if transferred in some other school, then whosoever was senior amongst the teachers in that school, used to assume office of head Master. Therefore, there was no rank as such as has been held in Ramgopals case (supra) and therefore, in view of P. G. Joshis case (supra) which applies with full force to the facts of the instant case and it appears, probably was not brought to the notice of the Court in Ramgopals case (supra), else the judgment would have been otherwise. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by Their Lordships of the supreme Court in P. G. Joshis case (supra), the view taken in Ramgopals case (supra) stands no longer a good law. ( 21. ) THE view taken in Ramgopals case (supra) that the incumbents occupying the post of Head Master, were officiating that post of Head Master. To us, it appears that the view taken is against Fundamental Rule 9 (19) which defines "officiate" thus : ""officiate" : A Government servant officiates in a post when he performs the duties of a post on which another person holds a lien. A local government may, if it thinks fit, appoint a Government servant to officiate in a vacant post on which no other Government servant holds a lien. " Therefore, persons holding substantive post, but getting allowance for discharging additional work, that by itself does not create a right of officiation in that post giving right to the incumbents to hold that office as of right. " Therefore, persons holding substantive post, but getting allowance for discharging additional work, that by itself does not create a right of officiation in that post giving right to the incumbents to hold that office as of right. It will be even neither a case of officiation as defined in Fundamental Rule 9 (19) nor does it give any right to hold that post In the instant case, the office of Head Master was not a promotion post prior to 1-4-1981, prescribing separate cadre and scale of pay and therefore, question of officiation in that post does not arise attracting Rule 3 of the M. P. Government servants (Temporary and Quasi-permant Service) Rules, 1960 nor Rule 12 of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. ( 22. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the provision of Rule 2 (vi) of M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 is also being violated is not including rs. 50a and Rs. 25/-, as special pay of Middle School and Primary School Head masters, respectively, in their present scale of pay, while fixing pay in the revised scale of pay of UDT and LDT. ( 23. ) THERE is no doubt that the post of Head Master of Middle School and primary School, carries a higher scale of pay and has become a promotion post after 1-4-1981. The seniormost persons amongst UDT and LDT are being retained or promoted to the post of Head Master. Earlier, allowance was given for such work which a particular person was discharging in particular circumstances and as such it was not a part of basic pay and therefore there is no breach of M P. Revision of Pay rules, 1983, as the same has no application in the present state of affairs where the posts of Head Master in Middle Schools and Primary Schools, have been newly created by virtue of Choudhary Pay Commission recommendations. ( 24. ( 24. ) IT is next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the interest of the petitioners that the provisions as to post, contemplated under Fundamental rule 9 (19), 9 (22) and 9 (30) defining "officiate", "permanent post" and "temporary post" respectively, be given such a harmonious construction so that the teachers who were occupying the office of Head Master for ten years and more, may be retained in new cadre of Head Master of Middle School and that of Primary School, created after 1-4-1981. We are afraid, contrary to the settled principles, under the garb of interpretation, the court has no jurisdiction to make new law when the language of a particular statute or Rule is plain and simple, then it does not lie within the province of the Court to make a new law. ( 25. ) HOWEVER, the Courts are not lacking any jurisdiction to interpret law applying principles of golden rule of interpretation does not create any anomaly in interpreting the statute in such a manner so that it may extend benefit to the larger section of a class or society. Keeping this rule in view, the Court then by giving harmonious construction proceeds to interpret the law, but the position in the instant case is quite different. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific cadre for head Master of Middle Schools and that of Primary Schools and by virtue of their long tenure to the post of Head Master, prior to 1-44981 if it is construed that they had acquired right to continue on that post after coming into force of Choudhary Pay commission report, then in our opinion, any such interpretation in the present circumstances, will create an anomaly, thereby causing great loss to the teachers class as a whole and the teachers who are really seniors to the existing Head Masters, will not get due chance of their being appointed as Head Masters. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to stretch the law in a narrow sense giving benefit to a very few. Otherwise, the very purpose of seniority will be eliminated and frustrated ( 26. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to stretch the law in a narrow sense giving benefit to a very few. Otherwise, the very purpose of seniority will be eliminated and frustrated ( 26. ) LASTLY, on behalf of the petitioners it has been argued that in some of the cases, the petitioners have not been given due seniority and the teachers who are junior to them, have been promoted as Head Master, However, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not place any concrete or specific examples. We hops that the concerning authorities in Education Department will act fairly and impartially in the matter of selection of Head Master of Middle Schools and Primary Schools in adherence to the Rules in considering their seniority giving no chance of any frustration. ( 27. ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. The security amount, if deposited any by the petitioners, shall be refunded to them. Petitions dismissed.