# STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR v. KIRPAL SINGH BHATIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 529
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-08-29
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew, Y. V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-and-anr-v-kirpal-singh-bhatia-ors-6626
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Punj(Ib Educational Services Class Ill Sc110.nl Cadre Rules, 1955-rr. 7 and 10
and instructions issued by the. Government fron1 time td time-Scope of.
Promotion from lower grades in the service to a higher grade is one
of
the methods of recruitment under r. 7 of the Punjab Educational Service Class
III School Cadre Rules, 1955.
Rule 10 of the rules states that members of the
service would be entitled to such scales as may be authorised by the government from time to time.
The State Government issued letter dated 23rd July, 1957 on the subject
of revision of scales of low paid government servants 'in which it was stated
that the then existing scales of pay of certain categories of pasts should, with
effect from 1 May, 1957, be revised as shown therein. In that letter teachers
according to their qualifications were placed in categories A and B, and the
re'Spective scales of pay to which they were entitled were mentioned. The letter
dated 7 November, 1958 issued by the Deputy Director (Schools) to the Inspector
of Schools stated that 25% of the posts of B.T./B.Ed, masters should be filled
by promotion from amongst teachers working in the lower grade who have
passed the above examinations and that the selection was to be made on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The respondents who were teachers
v.~re promoted from time to time as
masters but were never allowed continuously beyond six months to avoid continuity in service and were not given the revised scales.
They claimed the revised scales of pay as well as the posts of masters on the ground that they bad
taken the degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent, that the letter dated
23 July, 1957 '<Vhich became effective from 1 May, 1957 entitled them to the
revised grade if they took the degree of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivaleni
and that the letter of 7 November 1958 entitled them to the po~ts of masters
to the extent of 25% of the vacancies.
The High Court allowed their prayers.
In appeal to this Court it was oon~
tended by the State that (i) there was not to be a mass increase of pay of' all
tea:hers to that grade of pay but what the letter dated 23 July, 1957 meant .
was that a teacher who passed B.T. examination would, be entitled to be appoint·
ed a master and· on being so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay; and
(ii) that according to the letter of 7 November 1958 tea-chers who were qualified
by possessing B.T./B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to get 25% of the posts
provided the respective· posts, according to their subject
combination,
were
vacant.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: The letter dated 23 July, 1957 fixed the scale of pay on the basis
of academic qualifications while the letter dated 7 November. 1958 recognised
the right of promotion to the posts of masters to the extent of 25%. l533E]
1.(a) Rule 10 entitles the teachers to such scales of pay as may be authorised by the Government from time to time.
Letter dated 23 July, 1957 showed
that teachers who. possessed the degree of B.T. or its equivalent on 1 1\fay,
1957 would be entitled to scales of pay mentioned therein. Those who will pass
-the examination of' B.T. thereafter would be entitled to their revised scale of
H
pay with effect from the date they passed the examination.
[532G]
(b) The conticntion of the State that there was not to be a mass in'crea!le of
scales of pay is unsound.
Teachers who possessed degrees became entitled to the
scales of pay according to category A.
[532Hj
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!976] ! S.C.R.
(c) The High Court rightly came to the concl11Sion that the s~ale of pay
would be effective either from the date when the teachers \vould pass the examination of B.T. or it·s equivalent or 1 11ay, 1957, whichever is later.
[533B1
(2) The High Court rightly held that the letter dated 7 November, 1958
was subject only .to two limitations, namely (i) that teachers could not claim
more than one fourth of the vacancies of posts ot' masters, and (ii) lhe claim
by way of pro

## Text

•
A
ll
D
F
G
529
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
v.
KIRPAL SINGH BHATIA & ORS .
August 29, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Punj(Ib Educational Services Class Ill Sc110.nl Cadre Rules, 1955-rr. 7 and 10
and instructions issued by the. Government fron1 time td time-Scope of.
Promotion from lower grades in the service to a higher grade is one
of
the methods of recruitment under r. 7 of the Punjab Educational Service Class
III School Cadre Rules, 1955.
Rule 10 of the rules states that members of the
service would be entitled to such scales as may be authorised by the government from time to time.
The State Government issued letter dated 23rd July, 1957 on the subject
of revision of scales of low paid government servants 'in which it was stated
that the then existing scales of pay of certain categories of pasts should, with
effect from 1 May, 1957, be revised as shown therein. In that letter teachers
according to their qualifications were placed in categories A and B, and the
re'Spective scales of pay to which they were entitled were mentioned. The letter
dated 7 November, 1958 issued by the Deputy Director (Schools) to the Inspector
of Schools stated that 25% of the posts of B.T./B.Ed, masters should be filled
by promotion from amongst teachers working in the lower grade who have
passed the above examinations and that the selection was to be made on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The respondents who were teachers
v.~re promoted from time to time as
masters but were never allowed continuously beyond six months to avoid continuity in service and were not given the revised scales.
They claimed the revised scales of pay as well as the posts of masters on the ground that they bad
taken the degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent, that the letter dated
23 July, 1957 '<Vhich became effective from 1 May, 1957 entitled them to the
revised grade if they took the degree of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivaleni
and that the letter of 7 November 1958 entitled them to the po~ts of masters
to the extent of 25% of the vacancies.
The High Court allowed their prayers.
In appeal to this Court it was oon~
tended by the State that (i) there was not to be a mass increase of pay of' all
tea:hers to that grade of pay but what the letter dated 23 July, 1957 meant .
was that a teacher who passed B.T. examination would, be entitled to be appoint·
ed a master and· on being so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay; and
(ii) that according to the letter of 7 November 1958 tea-chers who were qualified
by possessing B.T./B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to get 25% of the posts
provided the respective· posts, according to their subject
combination,
were
vacant.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: The letter dated 23 July, 1957 fixed the scale of pay on the basis
of academic qualifications while the letter dated 7 November. 1958 recognised
the right of promotion to the posts of masters to the extent of 25%. l533E]
1.(a) Rule 10 entitles the teachers to such scales of pay as may be authorised by the Government from time to time.
Letter dated 23 July, 1957 showed
that teachers who. possessed the degree of B.T. or its equivalent on 1 1\fay,
1957 would be entitled to scales of pay mentioned therein. Those who will pass
-the examination of' B.T. thereafter would be entitled to their revised scale of
H
pay with effect from the date they passed the examination.
[532G]
(b) The conticntion of the State that there was not to be a mass in'crea!le of
scales of pay is unsound.
Teachers who possessed degrees became entitled to the
scales of pay according to category A.
[532Hj
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!976] ! S.C.R.
(c) The High Court rightly came to the concl11Sion that the s~ale of pay
would be effective either from the date when the teachers \vould pass the examination of B.T. or it·s equivalent or 1 11ay, 1957, whichever is later.
[533B1
(2) The High Court rightly held that the letter dated 7 November, 1958
was subject only .to two limitations, namely (i) that teachers could not claim
more than one fourth of the vacancies of posts ot' masters, and (ii) lhe claim
by way of promotion. would be considered by the appointing authority on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit. No condition or combination of subjects could
be read into the letter of 7 Novembei. 1958.
The High Court was also correct
in holding that the teachers were to be treated as serving in that scale of pay
continuously and not on six months basis, and that the teachers were to
be
considered for appointment to the posts of masters to the extent of 25% quota
as recognised for their category of ~e.acher~ on ~e basis ~f ~eniority--cumamerit
without being subjected to the cond1tJon of sub1ect comb1natton.
f534A-D1
CivrL APPELLATE JUR!SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
10th March,, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A.
No. 714 of 1970 and
Civil Appeals Nos. 1411-1314, 872, 873, 1369 and 1582 of 1974.
F. S. Nariman (In C.As. Nos. 1109 and 1582), Harbans Singh
(In C.A. No. 1109/73) and 0. P. Sharma, (In all the appeals), for the
appellants.
Hardayal Hardy, S. K. Mehta and M. Qamarrudin, for respondents
Nos. 1 & 8.
V. C. Mahajan, Urmila Sirur, S. C. Agarwala ailli V. I. Francis,
for respondents Nos. 2-5, 9-12 and 15-21 (In C.A. No. 1109/73).
Urmila Sirur, for respondents 2-7, 12, 13, 15-18, 20-22, 26, 27,
30, 32-36, 38, 41, 44-46, 50-57 & 59-62 (In C.A. Nos. 1411-1412/
74) and for all the respondents in (In C.A. No. 1414/74) Except Respondent No. 113 and respondents Nos. !, 3-16 and 18-23 (In C.A.
No. 1369/74).
V. C. Mahajan and Urmila Sirur, for respondents Nos. (All res·
pondents in C.A. No. 872/74), and respondents Nos. !, 2, 4-54, 5681, 83 and 85, (In C.A. No. 873/74) and respondents Nos. 1-214
(In C.A. No. 1582/74).
Balak Ram, for respondent No. 245 (In C.A. No. 1582/74).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.-These appeals are by special leave from the judgment
dated 10 March, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
•
c
))
E.
F
G
'
•
The respondents were teachers in the forll,!er State of Pepsu.
On
t
1 November, 1956 the former State of Pepsu merged in the State of
H
Punjab.
These teachers claim the revised scale of pay as, well as the
posts of Masters.
Their claims are based on these grounds.
First,
they have taken the Degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent.
Second, the letter dated 23 July, 1957 which became effective from
A
...
•
B
•
{
-
1c
D
E
F
;
G
H
PUNJAB V. K. S. BHATIA (Ray, C.J.)
531
1 May, 1957 entitles them to the revised grade if they took the Degrees
in Bachelor of Teachin~ or its equivalent.
Third, the letter dated
7 November, 1958 entitles the respondents to the posts of Masters to
the extent of 25 per cent of the vacancies .
The Jetter dated 23 July 1957 is addressed by the Secretary to
the Punjab Government.
The letter is on the subject : "Revision of
Scales of pay of low-paid Government servants".
The letter states
that after carefully considering th~ recommendations made
by Pay
Revision Committee it has been decided that the existing scales of
pay of certain categories of posts. should, with_ effect from 1 May, 1957,
be revised as shown therein. It is. thereafter stated that it has been
deci\led that all teachers according to their qualifications should be
placed in the following two broad categories :
Category 'A'
B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Sc.
(Agriculture)
and
B.T./
Diploma in Physical Education/Diploma in Senior
Basic
Training.
Category 'B' consists of four groups.
The first group consists of
Matriculates with Basic Training (including Junior Teachers).
The
second group consists of Junior School Teachers (including Assistant
Mistresses with B.A./Inter-Matric Plus J.A.V.
Training).
Groups
III and IV are also mentioned which are not relevant for the purposes
of these appeals.
Thereafter the crucial portions in the letter are
these.
For category 'A' the scale of pay is Rs.
110-8-190/10-250
with a higher start for M.A. or M.Sc. as at present.
The existing percentage of posts fixed by Government for the scales of Rs. 110-8-190 I
10-250 and Rs. 250-10-300 should remain unchanged at 85 per cent
and 15 per cent respectively.
It may be stated here that the scale of pay of Head Masters being
item (! l in Appendix is Rs. 250-10-350.
The scale of pay of Masters, Science Masters, Agriculture Masters, Clerical and Commercial
Master and Assistant District Inspector of Schools is Rs. 250-10-300.
The scale of pay of Second Master, Masters, Physical Training Master.
Assistant District Inspector of Schools. Agriculture Masters, Clerical
and Commercial Masters and Science Masters being item
(2)
is
Rs. 110-8-190-10-250 with a start of Rs. 126/- to M.A./M.Sc./M.
lIT/B T. and Rs. 150/- to M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed.(Il)/B.T.
and Rs.
150/- to M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. (II) /B.T.
The second letter on which the respondents relied is dated 7
November. 1958. This letter is from the Denuty Director (Schools) to
the Inspector of Schools.
The subject is : Promotion of the so-called
una\ljusted B.A. B.T./B.Ed., teachers to the posts of Master on
Rs. 110/250 grade. It is stated there that it has been decided that 25
per cent posts of B.T./B.Ed. Masters in Rs. 110-250 grade should be
filled by promotion from amongst the teachers workin_g in the lower
grade who have passed the B.A..
B.T./B.Ed. Examinations.
The
selection is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] I s.c.R.
Two of the relevant rules in Punjab Educational Service Gass Ill
School Cadre Rules, 1955 which were in force with effect from 23
May, 1957 are numbered 7 and 10.
Rule 7 speaks of the method of
recruitment.
The methods of recruitment are: (a) by direct appointment, or ( b) by transfer of an official from other Services or posts of
Government in the Education Department of any .Government
in
India, or ( c) by promotion from lower grades in the service. The
manner of appointment shall be strictly by selection etcetera as mentioned there.
Rule IO states that "members of the service will be
entitled to such scales of pay as may be authorised by the Government from time to time.
The scales of pay in force are specified in
Appendix 'A' against each post".
Appendix 'N is an appendix to
the Rules.
This Appendix mentions Masters as item No.
2.
The
scale of pay given in item No. 2 for the posts of Masters, who are
ordinary graduates with (legree of Bachelor of Teaching or equivalent
thereof is Rs. 110-8-190/10-250 whereas for M.As. and M.Scs. with
the degree of Bachelor of Teaching or Masters of Teaching or their
equivalent, the start of the grade is higher as already mentioned.
The Jetter dated 23 July, 1957 revised the scales of pay with
effect from 1 May, 1957. These appeals concern teachers who are
in category 'A'.
The revised scale given to teachers in category 'A' is
Rs. 110-8-190/10-250. Any teacher who would satisfy the test mentioned in category 'A' would be entitled to the scale of pay.
Counsel on behalf of the State contended that there was not to be
a mass increase of all teachers to that grade of pay but the letter dated
23 July, 1957 meant that a teacher who passed Bachelor of Teaching
examination would be entitled to be appointed a Master and on being
so appointed would be entitled to the scale of pay.
With regard to the letter dated 7 November, 1958 which stated
that 25 per cent posts of B.T./B.Ed. Masters in Rs. 110-250 grade
should be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers who were in
lower grade, counsel for the State contended that teachers who were
qualified by possessing B.T. B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to get 25
per cent of the posts provided the respective posts according to their
subject combination were vacant.
Rule 10 entitles the teachers to such scales
of pay as may
be
authorised by the Government from time to time.
The letter dated
23 July, 1957 shows that teachers who possess the degree of Bachelor
of Teachin1; or ~ts equivalent on 1 May 1957 will be entitled to scales of
pay mentioned therein.
Those who will pass the examination
of
Bachelor of Teaching thereafter will be entitled to their revised sci>lc
of pay with effect from the \:late they pass the examination.
The contention of the State that there was not to be a mass increase of scale of pay is unsound.
Teachers who possessed degrees
became entitled to scales of pay according to category 'A'.
The High Court rightly referred to the letter of the Secretary of
the Department dated 24 September, 1957 that teachers holding B.A.,
A
~
....
•
B
'
;',
-).. ~
c
D
E
F
G
'
•
t
H
-~
•
~
~
( -J
y
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB V. K. S. BHATIA (Ray, C.J.)
533
B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications would hence-forth be placed in category 'A'.
The High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the scale of
pay of Rs. 110-250 would be effective either from the date when the
teachers would pass the examination of Bachelor of Teaching or its
equivalent or 1 May, 1957, whichever is later. The High Court,
however, gave the teachers the scales of salary confined to a period of
3 years and 2 months counting back from the date of the presentation
of the writ petition. In other words, the High Court did not allow
the teachers any claim prior to 1967.
The letter dated 7 November, 1958 was necessary because in spite
of the revised grade of Rs. 110-250 having been granted to Bachelor
in Teaching or equivalent thereof, they were not being appointed by
process of promot10n to the posts of Masters.
The letter stated that
"selection is to be made on the basis of
s~niority-cum-merit, due
regard being paid to good reputation regarding character, popularity
among students ad! parents and capacity to maintain discipline". The
respondents claimed that according to the letter those of them who
were Bachelor in Teaching or Bachelor in Education were entitled to
be appointed to the posts of Masters. The teachers could not claim
vacancies by promotion exceeding 25 per cent.
Their claim for
appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not merely
their seniority but also their merit.
This percentage of 25 as fixed by
the let1er is covered by Rule 7 (ii) and the principle of selection for
appointment is covered by Rule 7 clause (iii). Therefore, the earlier
letter dated July 23, 1957 fixe\f the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications.
The subsequent letter dated 7 November, 1958
recognised the right of promotion to the posts of Masters to the extent
of 25 per cent.
The High Court said that the contention of the State that the teachers could not be considered for promotion unless they satisfied the
condition of subject combination namely, that if they were ordinary
graduates with training qualifications, they must have studied two out
of the four subjects, namely,
History. Geography, Economics
and
Political Science is not supporteld by the letter dated 7 November,
1958.
The High Court rightly said that the letter does not speak of
any !imitation of subject combination for promotion.
Some of the teachers were from time to time promoted to the
posts of Masters but never continuously beyond a period of six
months.
After completion of six months, there was a break to avoid
continuity in service for the posts of Masters b~yond six months.
The
State contended that the teachers could not be considered for promotion unless the Board were satisfied that the teachers if orl:!inary graduate with training qualifications· must have also studied two out of four
subjects of History, Geography, Economics and Political Science. The
teachers on the other hand contended that once the State Government
had taken a decision as embodied in the letter dated 7 November, 1958,
the policy of not allowing the teachers to continue beyond six months 0111
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 1 s.C.R.
temporary basis was nullifying the letter and spirit of the ):lecision of the
letter dated 7 November, 1958. The teachers also contended that the
promotion of teachers to Mast(!rs is completely independent of any consideration like the combination of subjects.
The High Court rightly held
that letter dated 7 November, 1958 was subject only to two limitations.
One was that teachers could not claim more than one fourth of the vacan·
cies of the posts of Masters and the other was that the claim by way of
promotion would be considered by the appointing authority on the basis
of seniority-cum-merit.
The High Court rightly held that the Jetter
dated 7 November, 1958 was not subject to the condition of subjects
combination being fulfilled.
There arc three categories of teachersScience Masters, Mathematics Masters and Social Studies Masters.
No
condition of combination of subjects can be read into the Jetter of 7
November, 1958.
The second conclusion of the High Court is correct that the teachers were to be treated as serving in that scale of pay continuously
and not on six months basis.
The third conclusion which the High Court arrived is correct that
A
B
c
the teachers were to be considered for appointment to the, posts of
I)
Masters to the extent of 25 per cent quota as recognised for their
category of teachers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit without being
subjected to the condition of subject combination.
The judgment of the High Court is affirmed.
The appeals are
dismissed.
The respondents will be entitled to one set of costs.
P.B.R.
Appeals dismissed.
E
l
,..._
•
'
-,,; J-
' .
'
'
'