Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1010 (ALL)

Jai Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P.

2010-03-26

A.P.SAHI

body2010
ORDER Amareshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner voluntarily sought appointment as a Teacher in a Primary School managed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad and governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic School (Teachers Employment and Service) Rules, 1975. The petitioner contends that prior to his joining as a teacher in a Primary School under the Parishad, he has been working as a teacher in a recognized and aided Junior High School where he was getting higher salary. 3. In the present writ petition the submission made is that the petitioner has joined the service under protest with regard to a higher claim of salary. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner does not indicate that his appointment was made under any protest for a higher pay scale. The advertisement under which the selection has been made is directly governed by the 1975 Rules aforesaid. The payment of salary to a teacher is defined in Rule 10 where it is categorically stated that a teacher so appointed w.e.f. 1st of July, 1975 onwards shall get the same pay scale together with the D.A. which is being given to the other teachers having similar qualifications and enjoying a similar status of post. 4. It is, therefore, clear that the status of the petitioner is well defined under the Rule 10 aforesaid. The petitioner cannot take aid of the financial hand book for a higher scale of pay merely because the petitioner was getting higher salary when he was working in a Junior High School. The petitioner has accepted the employment as a teacher in the Primary School with open eyes. In such a situation even if he had raised a protest the same was not available to him in law. It was open to the petitioner to have joined the service or he could have recused himself. No claim is made out and, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.