Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri M.A.Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 also supported the impugned order.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have given due consideration to the rival contentions. The facts with regard to the initial appointment of the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.4 on 01.08.1998 as well as their respective qualifications are not in dispute. It is seen that the school in question is a secondary school in which education for standards 5 th to 10th is being imparted. It is also a high school as per clause (4) of Chapter I of the Secondary Schools Code. The Education Officer (Secondary) is the Authority concerned as per Rule 2(e)(iii) of the said Rules. competent in that regard. As per provisions of Rule 12 of the said Rules read with Schedule F thereto, the petitioner no.2 as well as the respondent no.4 since their initial appointment entered category 'C'. The fact that the petitioner no.2 was initially appointed as Lower Division Assistant Teacher and the respondent no.4 was appointed as Upper Division Assistant Teacher would not be of much relevance in view of the fact that both of them entered category 'C' by virtue of being duly qualified on 01.08.1998. The 6 wp6436.06(J) effect of higher pay being drawn by a Assistant Teacher on the question of seniority has been considered by the Division Bench in Saramma Varghese (supra). It has been held that what is of relevance is the date of entry in category 'C' and not the aspect of receiving higher scale of pay. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment the following observations have been made :