Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 789 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Dharmdas Patel

2008-06-26

ARUN MISHRA, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
ORDER 1. The writ appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh aggrieved by order dated 3.8.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10772/2003. 2. The respondent was earlier working in Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Khera, District Rewa. He was initially appointed as Asst. Teacher in the year 1979 as per order (A-1) dated 20.6.1979. Later on he was appointed as UDT as against the post of Craft Teacher in the scale of Rs.246-460/-. On 15.12.1984/17.12.1984 the State Government took a decision to take over the institution. The services of the respondent were taken over by the State Government. He was absorbed as Asst. Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 545-925/- though he was serving on the higher post of UDT w.e.f. 1981. The respondent has submitted that his absorption on the lower post than he was holding was not proper, he was having requisite qualification for the post of teacher (UDT), thus his absorption should have been made in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1180/-. 3. An Original Application was filed before the Tribunal by respondent praying for the relief of grant of pay scale applicable to the post of Craft Teacher/UDT. The learned Single Judge has allowed the application by directing the absorption of the respondent in the pay scale of Rs. 7401180/-. Dissatisfied thereby the writ appeal has been preferred by the State Government. 4. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has submitted that it is a case where in the staffing pattern, there were only 5 posts of teachers. As per the seniority the respondent was not falling within the five posts of teachers sanctioned for school as per the staffing pattern. Consequently, he was absorbed as Asst. Teacher as against the post of Craft Teacher as per order (A-7) in the pay scale of Rs. 545-925/-. The impugned order passed by Single Bench is bad in law, same deserves to be quashed. 5. Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the order, he has submitted that the respondent was having the qualification of B.A. There was no post of Asst. Teacher in the staffing pattern sanctioned for the higher secondary school in question, thus the absorption made as Asst. Teacher as against the post of Craft Teacher was bad in law. Teacher in the staffing pattern sanctioned for the higher secondary school in question, thus the absorption made as Asst. Teacher as against the post of Craft Teacher was bad in law. The post of Craft Teacher was carrying the higher pay scale as that of UDT which ought to have been extended, consequently injustice has been rightly undone by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference in the writ appeal is made out. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, there is no merit in the writ appeal. Scheme of absorption relied upon by the learned Government Advocate indicates that in case a person is duly qualified for the post held, he could not have been absorbed on the lower post as provided in the circular dated 6120.12.1972. In the instant case staffing pattern (A-6) sanctioned by the State Government indicates that there was no sanctioned post of Asst. Teacher in the staffing pattern. Post of Teacher and Craft Teacher were carrying similar pay scale ofRs.740-1180/-, thus the absorption of the respondent as Asst. Teacher carrying the lower pay scale was not in accordance with the staffing pattern sanctioned by the State Government. The screening committee while considering the matter as per resolution (R-l) has ordered absorption of the respondent as Asst. Teacher on the basis that it was not possible to adjust him in the five available posts of Teacher. He was not qualified for the post of Craft Teacher, thus his absorption was recommended to be made as Asst. Teacher. While making the aforesaid recommendation the Screening Committee has ignored and overlooked the qualification of the petitioner which was B.A., he was duly qualified to hold the post of Teacher (UDT) which post he was holding w.e.f. 1981. Thus, he should have been absorbed as Teacher as against the post of Craft Teacher which carried similar pay scale as that of teacher. The institution which was taken over was receiving grant-in-aid and for that purpose the appointment was approved, is not disputed. The respondent was being paid the salary of teacher by the State Government as per grant-in-aid rules before the school was taken over. The respondent was serving w.e.f. 1981 on higher salary and payment was being made as per grant-in-aid rules by the State. The respondent was being paid the salary of teacher by the State Government as per grant-in-aid rules before the school was taken over. The respondent was serving w.e.f. 1981 on higher salary and payment was being made as per grant-in-aid rules by the State. He was holding educational qualification requisite for the post of teacher, consequently his absorption in the lower salary on the post of Asst. Teacher which post was not provided in the staffing pattern, was clearly illegal and arbitrary act. Thus, we find that the relief prayed by the respondent that his absorption should have been made as teacher, as against post of Craft teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1180/- was commensurate to his qualification. 7. For the aforesaid reason we find that there is no merit in the appeal, same is hereby dismissed. No costs.