JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a Teacher, has prayed for the following reliefs: "(15A) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of respondent commissioner dt. 11.7.2005 at Annexure - K and also, the order of respondent D.E.O. dated 17.9.2004 at Annexure-H to the extent of not granting time scale grade of Rs. 5500 to 9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and not granting higher scale grade on completion of continuous services of 9 years on 17.7.1995. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Teacher for the higher secondary classes on the basis of the advertisement and qualifications and, therefore, right from the initial date of her appointment i.e. 17.7.1986, she was entitled to be placed in the revised time scale salary of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and be pleased to declare that, the petitioner stood entitled to higher grade on completion of 9 years of services on 17.7.1995, therefore, be pleased to hold and declare that, the action on the part of the respondent authorities to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioner from the initial date of her appointment i.e. 17.7.1986 in the time scale salary of Rs. 1640 - 2900, thereafter in the revised time scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000 and thereafter to place the petitioner from 1.1.1996 in the time scale salary of Rs. 5500 - 9000 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioner in the higher grade scale of Rs. 6500 - 10500 w.e.f. 17.7.1995 and accordingly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to fix the pay scales and salaries of the petitioner and to pay the arrears of salaries in difference of revised time scale salary of Rs. 1640 - 2900 from 17.7.1987 and further from 1.1.1996 of time scale of grade of Rs. 5500 - 9000 and further be pleased to order to pay the arrears of salary in difference of time scale of Rs. 1640 - 2900 from 17.7.1987 and further from 1.1.1996 of time scale of grade of Rs. 5500 - 9000 and further be pleased to order to pay the arrears of salary in difference of time scale of Rs. 6500 - 10500 on and from 17.7.1995 and to pay the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities to be illegal, arbitrary, based on extraneous considerations, mala fide and be pleased to order the respondent Commissioner to hold and inquiry and to take suitable actions on the erring officers. (E) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass any other further order/s are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 16. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition:- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioner in the higher grade salary of Rs. 6500 - 10500. (B) Your Lordships may be please to direct the respondent authorities to complete the formalities of any fixation of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the higher secondary classes w.e.f. 17.7.1986 upto the date. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to supply the duplicate service book to the petitioner with certified entries posted therein." 2. The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under: 2.1 The District Education Officer, Rajpipla, issued an advertisement dated 3rd March 1986 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for being appointed on the posts of the Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Schools. The writ applicant, possessing the qualifications of M.A., B.Ed, as on the date of the advertisement, applied for the said post. After undergoing the entire regular recruitment process, the selection committee cleared the writ applicant and appointed her as a Postgraduate Assistant Teacher vide the appointment order dated 17th July 1986. 2.2 The writ applicant was put in the basic pay scale of Rs. 400/- with other similarly situated persons who also came to be appointed along with the writ applicant in the Higher Secondary Schools in Rajpipla. 2.2 The writ applicant was put in the basic pay scale of Rs. 400/- with other similarly situated persons who also came to be appointed along with the writ applicant in the Higher Secondary Schools in Rajpipla. 2.3 It is the case of the writ applicant that pursuant to the representation of the Teachers' Association, the Government took a decision that the Teacher imparting education in the Secondary Schools, they should be a trained Graduate i.e. Graduate with B.Ed, qualification, and those appointed for the Higher Secondary Classes should also be treated as the Postgraduate trained teacher i.e. Postgraduate with the B.Ed, qualification. 2.4 On the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission, the time-scale of Rs. 440 - 750/-, which was common for both the Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers, came to be revised giving notional effect retrospectively from 1st January 1986. 2.5 The State Government passed a resolution in that regard dated 14th July 1987. The time-scale of a trained Graduate came to be revised from Rs. 440-750/- to Rs. 1400 - 1600/-. Whereas the Postgraduate Teachers' salary came to be revised from Rs. 440 - 750/- to Rs. 1640 - 2900/-. 2.6 Despite such revision in the time-scale, the writ applicant was given the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - 1600/- as she was not a Postgraduate teacher in the Higher Secondary Classes. 2.7 Similarly situated Teachers, like the writ applicant herein, who were assigned the work to teach in the Higher Secondary Classes, were given the benefit of the revised time-scale grade of Rs. 1640 - 2900/- and on completion of nine years of service, they were also given the benefit of the higher grade. 2.8 The writ applicant preferred representation in this regard and requested the authority concerned to remove the anomaly. She brought to the notice of the authority concerned that she had been assigned the work to teach in the subject of languages i.e. English and Hindi in the Higher Secondary Classes as well as in the Secondary Classes. It is her case that the Principal of the School asked her to shoulder the responsibility of teaching in both, the Secondary Classes as well as the Higher Secondary Classes. 2.9 It is her case that from 1st January 1996 i.e. when the Fifth Pay Commission came into force, she was entitled for the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/-. 2.9 It is her case that from 1st January 1996 i.e. when the Fifth Pay Commission came into force, she was entitled for the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/-. However, the claim was declined. 2.10 It is also her case that she completed nine years of service on 17th July 1995 and was entitled to the higher salary in the pay scale of Rs. 6500 - 10,500/-. However, she was continued in the old pay scale. 2.11 Thus, it is the case of the writ applicant that although entitled, yet she was not given the revised time-scale grade of Rs. 1,640 - 2,000/- which came to be revised to Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/-, and then on completion of nine years of service, the higher grade of Rs. 6,500 - 10,500/-. 2.12 Hence, this writ application. 3. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that gross injustice has been done with his client. The other teachers, who were appointed along with the writ applicant possessing the very same qualifications and imparting education in both, the Higher Secondary and the Secondary Classes, were given the benefits at the relevant point of time which are prayed for by the writ applicant by way of this writ application. Mr. Mishra pointed out that one Mr. Hasmukh Pathak and another Mr. Vanraj Bansal both appointed on the same date along with the writ applicant were granted the higher grade pay scale upon completion of nine years service from July 1986. Whereas, the writ applicant was not given such higher grade pay scale. He pointed out that from 20th November 1989, his client was exclusively asked exclusively to teach in the Higher Secondary Section and in this regard, relevant documentary evidence is also on record. 4. Mr. Mishra, therefore, prays that there being merit in this writ application, the same deserves to be allowed and the reliefs as prayed for be granted. 5. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Mr. Mishra, therefore, prays that there being merit in this writ application, the same deserves to be allowed and the reliefs as prayed for be granted. 5. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He would submit that the Commissioner, Mid-day Meal Scheme and Schools has passed a detailed reasoned order, as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, for arriving at the conclusion that the writ applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ application. The learned A.G.P. pointed out that after consideration of all the relevant aspects, the decision was taken that the writ applicant is entitled to the pay scale of Higher Secondary Teacher with effect from 11th February 1992 and counting nine years thereafter would be entitled to receive Rs. 6,500 - 10,500/- as the first higher grade pay. The learned A.G.P. has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2: "6. It is submitted that the facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 17/7/1986 (Annexure-B, page-16 to the petition), whereby the petitioner has been appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 44-750 as an Assistant Teacher in the Rajpipla Government School it is submitted that the said appointment order was passed pursuant to the application being invited vide advertisement dated 3rd March, 1986 (Annexure-A, page 15 to the petition). 7. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, the pay scale for the post of Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Teacher was Rs. 440-650/-. However the said pay scales were revised and vide Resolution dated 14/7/1987, separate pay scales were prescribed for Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Teacher i.e. Rs. 1400 - 2600/- for Secondary Teacher and Rs. 1640 - 2900 for Higher Secondary Teacher. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Teacher and the petitioner was taking periods of the students in the secondary section only and the statement showing the allocation of periods to each and every teacher for the period from 1986 to 1989 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-RI to this reply. 9. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Teacher and the petitioner was taking periods of the students in the secondary section only and the statement showing the allocation of periods to each and every teacher for the period from 1986 to 1989 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-RI to this reply. 9. It is submitted that if the said statement is carefully perused, it would be crystal clear that the petitioner has not taken any period in the Higher Secondary Section except 6 periods in Standard 11 in the year 1986, for which separate period allowance is given to the petitioner. 10. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner has not taken any period in the Higher Secondary Section and the petitioner was never appointed as Higher Secondary Teacher. It is also required to be noted that even after issuance of the Government Resolution dated 14.7.1987 (Annexure-C, page-20 to the petition), whereby higher pay scale of Higher Secondary Teacher was prescribed, the petitioner was paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - 2600, which is the pay scale prescribed for Secondary Teacher and the petitioner has accepted the said pay scale without any objection, which clearly proves that the petitioner was also aware and had admitted that the petitioner is a Secondary Teacher and therefore, he is entitled to the pay scale of Secondary Teacher only., 11. It is submitted that as against that Shri V.L. Vasava and Shri H.R. Pathak, who were appointed along with the petitioner, were being given the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1640 - 2900 i.e. pay scale of Higher Secondary Teacher from 1987 onwards and the petitioner was very well aware about the said aspect. However, the petitioner did not raise any grievance at the relevant time and had accepted the salary in the pay scale of Secondary Teacher without any objection and thereby had acquiesced with the payment of salary in the pay scale of Secondary Teacher and now after a long gap, the petition is preferred, which may not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court. 12. It is submitted that vide order dated 11/2/1992, the District Education Officer, Bharuch had passed substantive order appointing the petitioner as Higher Secondary Teacher in Vijay Vidhya Mandir, Avidha on the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. 12. It is submitted that vide order dated 11/2/1992, the District Education Officer, Bharuch had passed substantive order appointing the petitioner as Higher Secondary Teacher in Vijay Vidhya Mandir, Avidha on the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. A copy of the said order dated 11/2/1992 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-RII to this reply." x x x 14. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner was appointed as Higher Secondary Teacher only in the year 1992 and at that time, the petitioner has not raised any grievance that the petitioner is entitled for the Higher Secondary Scale since his appointment in the year 1986 and has accepted the said order and therefore, now after a lapse of more than 13 years, the petitioner may not be permitted to raise any grievance to the contrary. 15. It is submitted that the petitioner made several representation from the year 2001 to the District Education Officer seeking grant of Higher Pay Scale on completion of 9 years from the year 1986. However, the said representation came to be rejected by the District Education Officer vide order dated 16/9/2004 (Annexure-H, page-56 to the petition), whereby the said request of the petitioner to grant higher pay scale on completion of 9 years from the 1986 is rejected. 16. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 14144 of 2004, wherein this Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Shah) vide order dated 26/10/2004 (Annexure-I, page-58 to the petition) has directed that the petitioner's representation dated 19/8/2004 shall be decided by the Commissioner of Mid Meals & Schools in accordance with the law. 17. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner of Mid Day Meals & Schools personally heard the petitioner and the contention that the petitioner is not heard by the Commissioner of Mid Day Meals & Schools is absolutely incorrect and misleading. 18. It is submitted that on 30/3/2005, the petitioner had remained present for hearing before the Commissioner and other officers and copy of the noting on the date of the hearing, wherein the petitioner has also signed, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-RIII to this reply. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner is not heard by the commissioner is absolutely incorrect." x x x "20. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner is not heard by the commissioner is absolutely incorrect." x x x "20. It is submitted that said decision is arrived at after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects including the fact that the petitioner had not worked in the Higher Secondary Section earlier and therefore, he is not entitled to the higher pay scale of the Higher Secondary Teacher. It is also considered that the petitioner has accepted the pay scale of Secondary Teacher without any objection, which proves that the petitioner was a Secondary Teacher only. It is also considered that the petitioner has been appointed as Higher Secondary Teacher only vide order dated 11/2/1992 and from that date, the petitioner has been paid salary of Higher Secondary Teacher and on completion of 9 years from 11/2/1992 i.e. on 11/2/2001, the petitioner is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 6500 - 10500 and therefore, decision of the District Education officer is perfectly just and proper. Therefore, request of the petitioner came to be turned down by the Commissioner." 6. There is one further affidavit of the writ applicant on record stating as under: "1. I say and submit that, I stand entitled to pay fixation under Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 and other orders issued from time to time in this behalf I further say and submit that, I stand entitled to a pay in the pay band fixed at Rs. 16560 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 (PB2) along with Grade Pay at Rs. 4600. 2. I further say and submit that, I am entitled to receive pay and allowances payable to me from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010, in notional, and from 01.04.2010 onwards, in cash, as per F.D.G.R. No. PGR/102009/53/Pay Cell (m) dated 14.10.2008 and 06.04.2010. I further say and submit that I am entitled to draw pay at Rs. 19280 is the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 (PB2) along with Grade Pay at Rs. 5400 w.e.f. 1st April 2009. 3. I further say and submit that a statement was issued by the District Education Officer, Anand, towards my entitlement of erroneous dues and placing me in the time scale, and further not issuing pay and allowances, under the rules as scale grades, as available to the teachers, which was also forwarded to me. 5400 w.e.f. 1st April 2009. 3. I further say and submit that a statement was issued by the District Education Officer, Anand, towards my entitlement of erroneous dues and placing me in the time scale, and further not issuing pay and allowances, under the rules as scale grades, as available to the teachers, which was also forwarded to me. A copy of the statement from the District Educational Officer, Anand towards my benefit under the rules along with a statement in my respect, prepared along with the statement of the District Educational Officer, Anand along with the pay-slip of the month of February 2016 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A1 (colly) to this further affidavit." 7. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned A.G.P. prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same be rejected. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the respondent No. 2 committed any error in passing the impugned order. 9. I take notice of the fact that in the past, one Special Civil Application No. 14144 of 2004 was filed by the writ applicant for the very same reliefs prayed for in this writ application. The said writ application came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 26th October 2004, which reads as under: "In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher in Government schools in Narmada district, has challenged the communication dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure-H) from the District Education Officer, Rajpipla, Narmada district rejecting the petitioner's request for giving her first higher grade pay-scale upon completion of nine years' service from 21.7.1986 and instead directing that the petitioner shall be given such first higher grade pay scale upon completion of nine years' service from 21.2.1992. 2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner along with two other teachers were selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 3.3.1986 (Annexure-A) whereby the applications were invited for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teachers in Government secondary schools as well as Government higher secondary schools in the pay scale of Rs. 440-750. 2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner along with two other teachers were selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 3.3.1986 (Annexure-A) whereby the applications were invited for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teachers in Government secondary schools as well as Government higher secondary schools in the pay scale of Rs. 440-750. The advertisement was for two posts of Assistant Teachers with the qualification of M.A. B.Ed., in English and Sanskrit and for one post of Assistant Teacher with qualification of M.Sc. B.Ed.. Pursuant to the said selection, three persons including the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Teachers by three separate appointment orders dated 17.7.1986. The petitioner and Mr. Hasmukh R. Pathak both possessing the qualification of M.A. B.Ed, in English and Sanskrit were appointed as Assistant Teachers on the same date. Mr. Hasmukh Pathak was posted at the Government secondary school at Kevadia Colony. Another teacher - Mr. Vanraj Bansal with qualifications of M.Sc. B.Ed, was also appointed on the same date at Rajpipla. It is submitted that both the above teachers i.e. Mr. Hasmukh Pathak and Mr. Vanraj Bansal are granted higher grade pay scale upon completion of nine years' service from July 1986 whereas the petitioner was not given such higher grade pay scale and, therefore, the petitioner went on making representations which have now been replied to by the aforesaid communication dated 17.9.2004. 3. It is further submitted that initially on account of certain administrative exigencies, the petitioner was not given teaching work exclusively in the higher secondary section but she was assigned teaching work in the secondary section and also some periods in the higher secondary section. The learned counsel further states that at least from 20.11.1989 the petitioner was exclusively given teaching work in the higher secondary section for which the petitioner had also produced the relevant certificates before the DEO as will be clear from the petitioner's notice dated 19.8.2004 (Annexure-F). Even then the DEO has treated as if the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the higher secondary section only from 11.2.1992 when the petitioner was given posting at Vijay Vidyamandir, Avidha, Taluka Jhagadia. Even then the DEO has treated as if the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the higher secondary section only from 11.2.1992 when the petitioner was given posting at Vijay Vidyamandir, Avidha, Taluka Jhagadia. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied only once and that was in response to the advertisement dated 3.3.1986 when two posts of Assistant Teachers with qualifications of M.A. B.Ed, (which is the qualification for teachers in the higher secondary school), were advertised and only Mr. Hasmukh Pathak and the petitioner were the two candidates who were selected for the posts of Assistant Teacher in English and Sanskrit for higher secondary section and, therefore, the DEO has erred in treating the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in higher secondary school only from 11.2.1992 and granting the petitioner first higher grade pay scale on that basis. 4. Looking to the subject matter of the controversy in this petition and that the petitioner's representation dated 19.8.2004 addressed both to the Commissioner of Schools and to the District Education Officer, Nadiad district has been considered only by the DEO, the interests of justice would be served if this petition is disposed of with a direction that the Commissioner of Mid-day Meals and Schools shall also consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.8.2004 with any supplementary representation which the petitioner may make within two weeks from today. If such a supplementary representation is made within two weeks from today, the Commissioner shall consider and decide the representation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the representation after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. It is directed accordingly. 5. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted." 10. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court referred to above, a detailed representation was filed by the writ applicant herein, the copy of which is at page - 64 (Annexure: "J") to this petition. In the said representation, it was specifically stated as under: "2 Sir, an order came to be passed on 17.9.2004 by the District Education Officer, Narmada at Rajpipla, wherein I have been given the 9 years of benefit from 21.2.2001. Sir, I have joined the services on 17.7.1986, therefore, on the basis of the said date of appointment, I have completed 9 years of service on 17.7.1995. Sir, I have joined the services on 17.7.1986, therefore, on the basis of the said date of appointment, I have completed 9 years of service on 17.7.1995. Herein, anomaly that has further crept in and length of service has not been taken into consideration and, therefore, I have been treated that, I have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the higher secondary from 21.2.1992. Sir, which is not feasible and possible, there cannot be two appointment orders. Therefore, instead of putting me in the higher scale, firstly my length of service should be taken into consideration and on completion of 9 years of services on 17.7.1995, such benefits of higher grade ought to have been given and the pay anomaly which is continuously crept into ought to have been done away from 17.7.1986 and not from 11.2.1992. Sir, there had not been any selection, advertisement, nor I have appeared in any such tests for re-selection for the post of Assistant Teacher in the higher secondary school. My appointment date is only 17.7.1986. Sir, since the anomaly has not been corrected and it persisted, Sir, it appears that, your Hon'ble Offices must have passed the instructions on my representation dated 19.8.2004, based on which anomaly have been done by an order of the District Education Officer, Narmada at Rajpipla dated 17.9.2004. In fact, the said anomaly has not been done properly and my time scale salary w.e.f. 4th Pay Commission of placing me in 1640-2900 have not been done and therefore, I stood entitled to the revision of salary as per the 5th Pay Commission in the time scale salary of Rs. 5500-9000 and revised time scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 17.7.1995 on the date I have completed 9 years of services." 11. The above referred representation came to be rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 11th July 2005. I also take notice of the fact that the main reason assigned by the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the claim of the writ applicant is that the appointment order of the writ applicant, no where indicates that she was appointed in the Higher Secondary Section or Secondary Section. From 21st July 1986 the writ applicant imparted education in the government schools, Rajpipla only in the Secondary Section and therefore, she could be termed as a Teacher appointed in the Secondary Section. From 21st July 1986 the writ applicant imparted education in the government schools, Rajpipla only in the Secondary Section and therefore, she could be termed as a Teacher appointed in the Secondary Section. So far as Shri Pathak and Shri Vasava are concerned, they were imparting education from day one in the Higher Secondary Section. 12. On 15th November 2005, the following order was passed: 1. "Prima facie it appears that if the petitioner is selected as teacher in secondary section she would not be entitled for the grade of teacher in higher secondary, but if the petitioner is selected as teacher in higher secondary and asked to work in the secondary section, the benefits cannot be taken away. 2. Mr. Desai, learned AGP is not in a position to show any authenticated record showing the basis of the advertisement which may throw light on the availability of the post at the time when the advertisement was given and hence, the matter deserves consideration. 3. RULE. The respondents are directed to place on record within a period of six weeks from today the authenticated record on the basis of which the advertisement was given for the recruitment for which the petitioner and other candidates are selected, by filing affidavit. After the affidavit is filed, either side may move the Court for final hearing of the matter." 13. Even as on date, the learned A.G.P. is not in a position to show any authenticated record showing the basis of the advertisement which could have thrown some light on the availability of the post at the relevant point of time when the advertisement was issued. 14. I am not at all convinced with the reasoning assigned by the respondent No. 2. Without any hesitation, I may state that the findings recorded are contrary to the evidence on record. The distinction drawn by the respondent No. 2 so far as the writ applicant and the other two employees are concerned also appears to be quite absurd. Unfortunately, no one has appeared on behalf of the School otherwise the picture would have been more clear. There is evidence on record to indicate that the writ applicant herein might not have been assigned the exclusive work of imparting education in the Higher Secondary Section and was assigned teaching work in the Secondary Section. Unfortunately, no one has appeared on behalf of the School otherwise the picture would have been more clear. There is evidence on record to indicate that the writ applicant herein might not have been assigned the exclusive work of imparting education in the Higher Secondary Section and was assigned teaching work in the Secondary Section. However, the record indicates that the writ applicant had conducted periods even in the Higher Secondary Section too. This is evident from Annexure: R/1 at page - 88 onwards. Just because there is no clarification in the appointment order as regards whether the writ applicant was appointed as a Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section or Secondary Section by itself is no reason for denying the benefits as claimed by the writ applicant, and more particularly, when she possesses the qualifications of being appointed as a Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section. I fail to understand why the writ applicant could not be said to have been appointed as the Higher Secondary Teacher. If she was appointed as a Teacher in the Higher Secondary and was asked to work in the secondary Section, the benefits could not have been denied on the ground that although she had conducted periods in the Higher Secondary Section, yet for those periods, a separate allowance was paid to the writ applicant. Having regard to the qualifications possessed by the writ applicant, she could be said to have been appointed in the Higher Secondary Section. One another reason assigned on behalf of the State is that although the writ applicant possesses the qualifications of being appointed as a Higher Secondary Teacher, yet having regard to the fact that she is a language Teacher is not entitled to claim the relief, as prayed for. This also appears to be quite absurd. Once having been appointed as a Higher Secondary Teacher, the subjects in which the education is imparted is hardly of any consequence. 15. In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced with the case put up by the writ applicant and hold that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ application. 16. In the result, this writ application succeeds and is allowed. 15. In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced with the case put up by the writ applicant and hold that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ application. 16. In the result, this writ application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 11th July 2005 (at Annexure: "K" to this petition) and also the order passed by the District Education Officer dated 17th April 2004 (at Annexure: "H" to this petition) are hereby ordered to be quashed. It is declared that the writ applicant is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.5,500 - 9,000/- with effect from 1st January 1996 and higher grade scale thereafter on completion of nine years of service. The respondents are directed to calculate the difference or the arrears of the salary accordingly and pay the requisite amount to the writ applicant within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of this order. The requisite amount shall be paid with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum on the same. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.