Judgment :- Grievance of the Petitioner is that his Junior Arokiasamy is getting more pay and therefore, his pay should be enhanced following Rule 22 B Fundamental Rule. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the orders of the first Respondent dated 012. 2000. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 010. 1972 in DOSRC School, managed by R.C.Diocese of Cuddalore. After completion of ten years of service, the Petitioner was given Selection Grade from 010. 1982 and the Petitioner passed B.Litt Decree in Tamil and he was promoted as Tamil Pandit from 01.02.1983. Grievance of the Petitioner is that he was given scale of Rs.1040-40-1600-50-2300-2600 instead of Rs.1640-60-2600-75- 2900 and the Petitioner was paid the selection Grade Tamil Pandit pay from 010. 1992 at the rate of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 and as per the 6th pay commission and one man commission report, from 01.01.1996, the Petitioners salary is fixed as Rs.6500-200-10500. .3. One C.Arokiasamy was appointed on 11.03.1977 and he was given Selection Grade Secondary Grade Teacher from 11.03.1987. As per G.O.Ms.No.1381 dated 010. 1990 from 01.06.1988, Arokiasamy was given Headmaster scale of pay of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900. As per VI Pay Commission and one man commission report, Arokiasamy was given Special Grade pay from 11.03.1997 at the rate of Rs.8000-275-13500 whereas the Petitioner is only getting Rs.6,900. Stating that his junior is getting higher scale of pay than the senior and that following FR 22 (B), seniors pay shall be stepped up to the pay of his junior, the Petitioner had submitted a detailed representation. By the impugned Order dated 012. 2000, the Government has observed that the provisions of equating the pay of the Senior to that of Junior are not satisfied in case of the Petitioner. 4. The main contention of the Petitioner is that as per FR 22 (B), when junior Arokiasamy is getting higher scale of pay than the Petitioner, who is senior, his pay shall be stepped up to the pay as that of junior from the date of such payment and the anomaly is to be removed. 5. Giving comparison of details of service and pay of Petitioner and the said Arokiasamy, would clarify the points raised by either of the parties. 6. Details of the service of Petitioner and the said Arokiasamy are as follows:- .7. 5. Giving comparison of details of service and pay of Petitioner and the said Arokiasamy, would clarify the points raised by either of the parties. 6. Details of the service of Petitioner and the said Arokiasamy are as follows:- .7. Scale of pay of Primary School Headmaster and Tamil Pandit are as follows: From the above, it is clear that Arokiasamy was working as Primary School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988 [Selection Grade]. Arokiasamy got pay [selection Grade] fixation benefits in Primary School Headmaster scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1988 i.e. Rs.1,640-2900 as per G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education dated 010. 1990. The Petitioner was promoted as Tamil Pandit from 01.02.1983 and was working as Tamil Pandit Ordinary Grade. The Petitioner never worked as Primary School Headmaster and the post of Petitioner and Arokiasamy are not identical to invoke FR 22 (B). 8. The learned Government Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court that the pay scale of Primary School Headmaster viz., Rs.1400-2600; Rs.1640-2600;Rs.200-3200 have been abolished from 01.05.1994 and the pay of the incumbents were ordered to be fitted in Rs.1200-2400; Rs.1400-2600; Rs.1640-1900 scales respectively in G.O.Ms.300 Education, dated 07.04.1994. It was submitted that the operation of G.O.Ms.300 had been stayed by the High Court in W.P.No.8896/1994 and in view of the same, G.O.Ms.No.300 could not be implemented. .9. As per FR 22 (B), if a junior is getting higher scale of pay, then seniors pay shall be stepped up to the pay of his junior from the date of such payment. The anomaly of senior drawing less pay than junior could be rectified only if both junior and senior officers belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted, or appointed, shall be identical in the same cadre. In this case, the Petitioner is working as Tamil Pandit whereas the said Arokiasamy is working as Headmaster Selection Grade. While Arokiasamy was working as Primary School Headmaster, he had the benefit of Selection Grade Scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1988. After VI Pay Commission and one man commission, his pay fixed in special grade of pay as Rs.8000-275-13500. The Petitioner, was working as Tamil Pandit, cannot seek to remove the anomaly invoking FR 22 (B). 10. Incidentally, it is to be pointed out that both Petitioner and the said Arokiasamy are working in DOSRC School maintained by Diocese. After VI Pay Commission and one man commission, his pay fixed in special grade of pay as Rs.8000-275-13500. The Petitioner, was working as Tamil Pandit, cannot seek to remove the anomaly invoking FR 22 (B). 10. Incidentally, it is to be pointed out that both Petitioner and the said Arokiasamy are working in DOSRC School maintained by Diocese. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that RC Schools do not normally maintain seniority list and at their discretion, appoint persons as Headmasters. Since RC Mission school is maintained by religious minority Institution and enjoys the benefit of minority rights under Article 30(i) Constitution of India, educational authorities do not have much control in the appointment of headmasters. The Petitioner, working as Tamil Pandit in a different cadre, cannot seek to equate his pay to that of Arokiasamy, who is working as Headmaster in a different cadre. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.