Kerala High Court
G.P.Sangeeta vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 22 December, 2009
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12790 of 2005(V)
1. G.P.SANGEETA, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
... Petitioner
2. M.A.MAYA, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
3. T.P.JAYASUDHA, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
4. JESSY GEORGE, H.S.S.T.(MATHAMATICS JR.),
5. SUJA.C.AUGUSTINE, H.S.S.T.(CHEMISTRY
6. SHEBIN JOHN, H.S.S.T.(PHYSICS JR),
7. BELLA JOSEPH, H.S.S.T.(CHEMISTRY JR.),
8. R.PRAVITHA, H.S.S.T. (MATHAMATICS JR)
9. RAJESGH SOMAN, H.S.S.T (CHEMISTRY JR.),
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
For Petitioner :SRI.BENOY THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos. 12790/2005-V, 12012/2006-V
and 10520/2009-H
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009.
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are at the instance of the petitioners who are having approved service as HSST (Junior) in various subjects in different schools. The main prayer in the writ petitions is to grant a declaration that they are entitled to Full Time scale of pay and other ancillary benefits admissible to the post of HSST, granted by Ext.P3 Govt. Order to their counter parts appointed as HSST (Part time).
2. The petitioners herein have been appointed in various schools prior to the introduction of the statutory rules in Chapter XXXII K.E.R. i.e., on 12.11.2001. They have been appointed as HSST Part time/Junior in aided higher secondary schools by direct recruitment, during the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 and the orders of appointment have been produced in these writ petitions.
3. It is their case that the Government as per G.O.(Ms) No.162/98/G.Edn. date 13.5.1998, produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.12790/2005, prescribed the method of filling up of the post of Higher wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 2 Secondary School Teacher in Government and aided higher secondary schools. In aided higher secondary schools, it was laid down that:
"(i) 25% vacancies will be reserved for appointment from qualified High School Assistants and Primary School Teachers.
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) Appointment to the 75% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment in the Aided Higher Secondary Schools will be done by the management."
Para 3 of the above Govt. Order is important, which is extracted below:
"3. While making appointments the Manager will see that only Part-time teachers are appointed when the periods to be taught are less than 15 in a week. This procedure will be followed in Government schools also when direct recruitment is resorted to through Employment Exchange. But the teachers appointed from General Education Subordinate Service will be treated as appointed by promotion and they will be full-time teachers irrespective of the periods to be taught."
The petitioners contend that the teachers appointed from General Education Subordinate Service, viz . in Government schools, were ordered to be treated as appointment by promotion and they will be full time teachers irrespective of the periods to be taught, i.e. the by transfer appointees therein were given a benefit as applicable to Full Time teachers. This was wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 3 challenged in various writ petitions before this Court by the by transfer appointees of aided schools who are appointed in the 25% quota. They also sought for Full Time benefits and the writ petitions were allowed. The Writ Appeals, viz. W.A.Nos.460 & 469 of 2000 were dismissed and Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed. Finally, the Government by Ext.P3, ordered to grant the benefit of Full Time scale of pay to all the Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers appointed by transfer from among qualified HSA/UPSA/LPSAs irrespective of the periods of teaching as in the case of Govt. Higher Secondary School Teachers as ordered in Ext.P4. It is made clear in Ext.P3 that this will not be applicable to those who were appointed under the provisions of the Special Rules since 12.11.2001.
4. It is pointed out that the very same criteria will have to be adopted in the case of the petitioners who were appointed under the 75% category in the aided higher secondary schools and there cannot be any discrimination as such in granting the scale of pay to them. They were also appointed pursuant to the method provided in Ext.P4 and with regard to the qualifications, nature of duties, workload, etc. there is no distinction between Part-time teachers appointed under 75% category and by transfer wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 4 appointees under 25% category. It is therefore contended that the denial of the benefit to them amounts to discrimination. They therefore seek the same benefit granted to others in Ext.P3.
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.12012/2006. The distinction between appointees under 25% category and 75% category is sought to be explained in the following manner:
"Such teachers were enjoying a scale of pay with increments in a time scale in the lower post. The demand of the petitioners who are direct recruits, a pay at par with experienced teachers in the field is not legally sustainable. In Government Higher Secondary Schools, when selection is made from Statewise seniority, teachers with more years of service are appointed first, but in Aided Higher Secondary Schools, teachers with less years of experience may get opportunity for selection. Such a discrimination cannot be separated when a general order is issued. In aided Higher Secondary schools, the appointing authority is the Manager. In most of the Aided Higher Secondary Schools, the Management has not considered seniority for selection under 25% category and many of such cases has also been upheld by this Honourable Court."
It is further contended in para 6 as follows:
"The petitioners are direct recruits whereas the by transfer appointees are from the qualified teachers under the management considering their qualifications, seniority with relaxation of age. The direct wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 5 recruits cannot claim the benefit as a matter of right. Service and experience have been given due weightage in all departments. For example, Assistants are considered as a collective unit doing similar works, but being paid according to their service and experience by upgrading as Assistant Grade-I, Senior Grade/Selection Grade/Higher Grade etc."
It is further pointed out that if persons like the petitioners are granted the benefits, then there will be huge liability on the part of the Government.
6. Therefore, the crux of the contention raised by the respondents is that the by transfer appointees have been given a weightage based on their earlier service, obviously as HSA/UPSA/LPSA. In para 16 of the counter affidavit, it is also stated that "in all departments, service, experience, etc. are being given weightage. Similar job with same pay is not a conducive aspect in any field in civil service."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Binoy Thomas contended that equal pay for equal work is a well accepted principle and the same cannot be denied, on the basis of the source of recruitment. If both categories have been fused into one, viz. HSST/HSST (PT/Jr.) there cannot be any distinction based on the source from which they have been appointed. All of them are performing the very same duties. There is no wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 6 distinction with regard to the qualification or the number of periods they have to handle. Therefore, the denial of the higher pay which is granted to the by transfer appointees, amounts to grave discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court and that of this Court:
Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and others (AIR 1967 SC 1889), The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and others (A.I.R. 1974 SC 1755), M.P. Singh and others v. Union of India and others ( AIR 1987 SC 485), Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers (Class I) Association and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1987 SC 490), Bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 1987 SC 2049), Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 1988 SC 1504), Kamlakar and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1999 SC 2300) and State of Kerala and others v. Daisy K.V. and others (ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 772) and an unreported judgment in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005.
8. It is submitted that in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005 similarly placed teachers have approached this Court and the petitioners therein were appointed under 75% quota prescribed for direct recruits. This Court held wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 7 that they cannot be discriminated in the matter of granting of scale of pay and there is no justifiable classification. It is pointed out that the Government has been directed to pass a fresh order in the matter and the petitioners are also entitled for a similar relief.
9. Learned Govt. Pleader Smt. T.B. Remani tried to explain that in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005 the learned Single Judge relied upon the dictum laid down by a Division Bench in Daisy K.V.'s case (ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 772). But actually the dictum laid down by the Division Bench will not cover the very same issue and therefore the directions in the said judgment cannot apply to the facts of this case and the matter has to be considered independently.
10. I shall first refer to the principles stated by the Apex Court and this Court in the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In Roshan Lal Tandon's case (AIR 1967 SC 1889), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that after the absorption of direct recruits and promotees in one cadre, no discrimination can be made for future promotions. The Apex Court, after considering the legal contentions, laid down the dictum in para 5 as follows:
"In our opinion, the constitutional objection taken by the petitioner wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 8 to this part of the notification is well founded and must be accepted as correct. At the time when the petitioner and the direct recruits were appointed to Grade 'D' there was one class in Grade 'D' formed of direct recruits and the promotees from the grade of artisans. The recruits from both the sources to Grade 'D' were integrated into one class and no discrimination could thereafter be made in favour of recruits from one source as against the recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade 'C'."
This judgment was followed in a subsequent decision in South Central Railway's case (AIR 1974 SC 1755). Therein, the question was considered in relation to seniority after drawing personnel from three different sources and integration into a single cadre. The Bench laid down the following criteria in para 35:
"The impugned directions of 1957 and 1961, in so far as they pertain to categories (ii) and (iii), are hit by the rule in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, ((1968) 1 SCR 185 = AIR 1967 SC 1889) according to which once the persons coming or recruited to the service, from two different sources -- in that case promotees and direct recruits -- are absorbed into one integrated class with identical service conditions, they cannot be discriminated against with reference to the original source, for the purpose of further promotion to the higher grade. What was said about further promotion in Roshan Lal Tandon's case (supra) is equally applicable to wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 9 absorption and seniority in the instant case."
11. We will now come to decisions wherein the Apex Court had to consider a similar issue in the light of grant of different pay structure to persons drawn from two sources and fused into one. The first of those decisions in in M.P.Singh's case (AIR 1987 SC 485). Therein, special pay was granted to officers drawn from various State cadres forming the investigation units of Central Bureau of Investigation. Direct recruits of the same unit challenged the same as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Granting special pay to members of various departments from State cadres was sought to be supported on the plea that it was being paid to attract officers of high calibre from their parent departments and the arduous nature of their duties. The above reasoning was not accepted by the Apex Court and it was held that the same violates Articles 14 and 16. The Bench expressed their view in para 10 as follows:
"Where the Special Pay that was being paid to all the officers in the cadre of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation has nothing to do with any compensation for which the officers who have been drawn from various State cadres to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the deputationists, may be entitled either on the ground of their richer wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 10 experience or on the ground of their displacement from their parent departments in the various States, but it relates only to the arduous nature of the duties that is being performed by all of them irrespective of the fact whether they belong to the category of the officers who have been recruited directly to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the 'non-deputationists', the classification of the officers working in the said cadres into two groups, namely, deputationists and non-deputationists for paying different rates of Special Pay would not pass the test of classification permissible under Articles 14 and 16 as it does not bear any rational relation to the object of classification."
12. In Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers Association's case (AIR 1987 SC 490), the matter concerned was granting of special pay to promotee officers of the Research Centre and the denial of the same to direct recruits who are doing the same job and possess equal qualification. It was held that the same amounts to discrimination. The special pay granted to the transferred employees were sought to be supported on the plea that they are selected by the Union Public Service Commission after a rigorous competitive examination. The Apex Court relied upon M.P. Singh's case (supra) and was of the view that all the direct recruits are doing the very same job as the transferred officers and Special Pay is not being paid to the transferred officials for compensating wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 11 their displacement or for their qualifications and finally, on a finding that persons who are directly recruited and working in the centre are not inferior to those who enter the centre by transfer, it was held that "there is no justification to deny the Special Pay at the same rates, to direct recruits working in the Centre. Denial of Special Pay to the direct recruits amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
13. In Bhagwan Dass's case (AIR 1987 SC 2049), the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, was considered, especially under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, in relation to persons doing similar work. Therein, two sets of personnel drawn under the Education Department, were offered different scales of pay, even though they were performing the very same duties. The view taken by the Bench is discernible from para 11 which is extracted below:
"Be that as it may, so long as the petitioners are doing work which is similar to the work performed by respondents 2 to 6 from the standpoint of 'equal work for equal pay' doctrine, the petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate selected by a process whereat candidates from all parts of the country could have competed or whether they are selected by a process where candidates from only a cluster of a few villages could have completed (competed) is wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 12 altogether irrelevant and immaterial, for the purposes of the applicability of 'equal work for equal pay' doctrine. A typist doing similar work as another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that the process of selection was different inasmuch as ultimately the work done is similar and there is no rational ground to refuse equal pay for equal work. It is quite possible that if he had to compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is limited to a cluster of a few villages. That however is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he might not have been selected at all if he had to compete against candidates from all over the country. But once he is selected, whether he is selected by one process or the other, he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work without violating the said doctrine."
14. In Jaipal's case (AIR 1988 SC 1504) also the same doctrine was considered and in a similar set of facts, in paragraphs 6 and 7 their Lordships examined the principles contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution and reiterated the position in the following words:
"Having regard to these facts and circumstances we are of the view that there is no difference in the nature of duties of the instructors and squad teachers and both of them carry out similar work under the same employer. The doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 13 on the premise of similar work but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. If the two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working conditions the doctrine of 'equal work equal pay' would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary. The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work.
Article 39(d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Art.39 is included in the Chapter of Directive Principle of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. the purpose of the article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay."
15. In Kamlakar's case (AIR 1999 SC 2300), it was held that the birth marks have no relevance in a matter like this. Therein also, the granting of pay scale to persons who are forming in one cadre, was considered and it was held that "no distinction can be made between direct recruits and promotees in the matter of pay scale. Para 12 emphasised the relevant doctrine in the following words:
"Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 14 treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given. The birth marks have no relevance in this connection."
Thus, it is clear that equal pay for equal work is a well accepted principle which conform to Article 39(d). After drawing persons into one cadre from different sources there cannot be any distinction on the basis of "birth mark" between them while they are discharging similar duties and there cannot be any other peculiar distinctions to form them as two different classes. Equal pay for equal work is the rule.
16. Since learned Govt. Pleader contended that in Daisy's case (ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 772), a different question was considered, I will examine the matter with reference to the contentions raised therein and the dictum laid down. Therein also, the appointment of HSSTs from two different sources in terms of various Govt. Orders, was considered and the distinction sought to be made in regard to the payment of scale of pay was specifically adverted to. The writ petitions were filed by the direct recruits alleging discrimination in the scale of pay with by transfer appointees. After considering various aspects, it was held that the direct recruits cannot be discriminated. In para 22, it was held as follows:
"The method of appointment to the post in question is governed by Ext.P1(a) Government Order issued well earlier than the sanctioning wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 15 of the school itself. That does not discriminate in the matter of payment with regard to the promotees and direct recruits. The pay revision order referred to above also does not, in any way, discriminate with respect to the payment of arrears in respect of promotees to the post of Higher Secondary School teachers and direct recruits against the said post. The promotees have been given arrears in full as admitted by the Government Pleader. The petitioners in this case had been appointed as per Ext.P13 series mentioning a particular scale of pay and their posts had been duly sanctioned as per Ext.P14 order. the order approving their appointment, Ext.P15, also refers to the scale of pay. In such circumstances, the direct recruits cannot be discriminated."
The said principle was followed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005. But the learned Govt. Pleader submitted that the Division Bench laid down the said principle while considering one of the conditions in the impugned order, Ext.P8 therein and it cannot have any application here.
17. A reference to the facts of the said case shows that the petitioners therein were appointed in a Higher Secondary School sanctioned by the Government during the year 2000-2001 with due sanction of posts. Staff fixation orders were issued pursuant to Ext.P3 and the appointments were approved with effect from the date of initial appointment. As per condition wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 16 No.4, the salary of teachers were directed to be claimed from 1.12.2001 onwards. But in regard to payment of arrears, it was specified that it will be governed by G.O.(P) No.56/2002/Fin. dated 16.1.2002. In the Govt. Order referred to therein, it is stated that "Aided School Plus Two Teachers will be paid salaries prospectively from the date of creation of posts. Arrears will be paid on par with Government Guest Teachers. General Education Department will issue further detailed orders." The Bench considered the effect of Ext.P4 Govt. Order dated 13.5.1998 in para 8 in the following words:
"While dealing with appointments in Government Higher Secondary Schools in para 2(ii) thereof, there envisaged a situation of appointing teachers in the same pattern as Guest Lecturers appointed in Government Colleges whenever sufficient suitable hands from Employment Exchange were not available for appointment. But when appointment by way of direct recruitment to the 75% of vacancies earmarked in that regard in Aided Higher Secondary School was dealt with in para 2(iii) of Ext.P1(a), there is no such stipulation of appointment of Higher Secondary School Teachers in the same term as Guest Lecturers, as envisaged in Government Schools."
In para 17 the Government Order dated 25.11.2004, i.e. Ext.P3 produced herein, was also discussed. It was found that the denial of the same wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 17 benefits to persons fro 25% quota violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said para is extracted below:
"Also, it is seen from Ext.P16 dated 25.11.2004 that Higher Secondary School Teachers appointed against the 25% quota reserved for promotion had been paid the full rate of salary even towards arrears, during the same period though their posts also had been sanctioned along with the posts sanctioned in respect of the petitioners. The duty to be performed by the Higher Secondary School Teachers whether they are appointed on promotion against the 25% quota or appointed on direct recruitment against the 75% quota is one and the same. Scale of pay entitled to them is also one and the same. It cannot be said that promotees are entitled for arrears at full rate in the scale of pay of the higher posts, while direct recruits will be entitled only a lesser pay, during the same span of time when both the groups were performing the same duty during the same period. This is nothing but naked discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the financial constraints is the reason for denial of arrears of salary at the full rate, necessarily that shall be applicable to the promotees from lower scale as well."
18. In the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005, the above view was relied on. It is true that the Division Bench considered the question in the light of a distinction sought to be made in relation to persons appointed from 75% category and the specific condition that they will be paid arrears wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 18 of salary at par with Government Guest Lecturers. It was found that as the appointments were approved with a previous date, they cannot be denied salary at par with similarly placed teachers under 25% category. Ext.P1(a) produced therein is the Govt. Order date 13.5.1998 which govern the method of appointment. True that the conditions sought to be challenged therein may be different. But the challenge was based on the very same point that there cannot be a discrimination between persons appointed under 75% category and 25% category with regard to the grant of scale of pay for payment of arrears. Para 17 quoted above, thus upholds the view that persons similarly situated, cannot be discriminated in the matter of payment of salary. All of them are performing the duties of HSST and therefore there cannot be any discrimination. After considering the above dictum laid down in Daisy's case (supra), the learned Single Judge laid down the general principle thus in para 5 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005:
" There cannot be any dispute that the qualifications required for appointment, duties and functions of the two sets of teachers are the same. Apart from the source of appointment there is absolutely no difference between the two sets of teachers. As such as Higher Secondary School Teachers, they cannot be discriminated in the scale of pay as there is no justifiable classification as to exclude the same from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination from wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 19 which Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection to identically situated persons. That being so, the 1st respondent is liable to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioners in this regard in the light of the Division Bench decision quoted above and my findings herein contained."
19. The contention raised by the learned Govt. Pleader that the dictum laid down by the Division Bench was peculiar to the facts of the said case, is not correct. Para 5 extracted above, is based on the principle that there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of grant of scale of pay as there is no justifiable classification to exclude them from the vice of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I reject the contention raised by the learned Govt. Pleader that the dictum laid down in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27077/2005 cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. Of course, the petitioners therein were appointed prior to the issuance of the Govt. Order dated 13.5.1998 and the conditions applicable to such teachers were different. The legal principles for making it applicable to the facts of this case, could be drawn from the said para.
20. The Govt. Order dated 13.5.1998 provides for recruitment from two sources, viz. by transfer and direct recruits, to fill up 25% category and 75% category, respectively. There is no distinction with regard to the wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 20 qualification, nature of duties and the like. But the Government favoured the teachers appointed from General Education Subordinate Service by granting them the benefit of Full Time Teachers. This aspect was considered in W.A. Nos.460 and 469 of 2000 which resulted in issuing Ext.P3 order. The said Govt. Order benefits persons appointed under 25% category in aided Higher Secondary Schools and they have been treated at par with similarly situated HSSTs placed in Govt. Higher Secondary Schools who were also appointed by transfer from qualified HSA/UPSA/LPSA. They have been granted the benefit irrespective of the periods of teaching.
21. Herein also, the petitioners have been appointed based on the method of appointment provided in Ext.P4 Govt. Order dated 13.5.1998. There is no case for the respondents that they are not performing similar duties. The only distinction sought is that the by transfer appointees are already in service enjoying a particular scale of pay and therefore they should be given a "weightage". The said plea directly goes against the view taken by the Apex Court that equal pay for equal work cannot be denied and once they are drawn into a common category, there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of birth mark. There cannot be any dispute that all these teachers, viz. petitioners and by transfer appointees, form a wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 21 specified class. Even though they are drawn from two different sources, after they are fused into one class and as they are doing similar duties in the same job, there cannot be any distinction in the matter of scale of pay. The very same principle was applied in the case of HSST (Junior) who were appointed in 25% category at par with the similarly placed teachers in Government Higher Secondary Schools. Herein, teachers in aided schools, viz. HSST (Juniors) under 25% category are benefited by Ext.P3 Govt. Order. The very same principle will apply to the petitioners herein, in the light of the facts pointed out earlier. In fact, as pointed out by the petitioners in the writ petitions, only after Chapter XXXII was introduced, it is stipulated that the appointment from HSST (PT/Jr.) to HSST (Senior) is by transfer. That was not the stipulation prior to the introduction of the Special Rules. Going by Ext.P3, HSST (PT) under 25% category are given the benefit of Full Time Teachers. Thus, it amounts to grave discrimination as far as the petitioners are concerned. In that view of the matter, the petitioners' contentions are well founded.
22. In the light of the above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petitions. They are entitled to be granted a declaration that they are entitled to Full Time scale of pay as admissible to the post of HSST wpc 12790/05, 12012/06 & 10520/09 22 conferred by Ext.P3 to their counterparts appointed by transfer as HSST (PT). Appropriate orders shall be passed by the Government to extend the benefits of Ext.P3 to the direct recruits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petitions are allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/