2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Qari Hassan Din, Oriental Teacher, Government High School, Khayaban-e-Sir Syed, Sector-II, Rawalpindi has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 15-9-2004 passed by Director Public Instructions (SE) Punjab, Lahore whereby appeal of the appellant was rejected and he was denied the award of S.S.T. in BS-16, as prayed by the appellant, thereby maintaining the order dated 28-1-1999 regarding grant of S.S.T. grade to Tahir Mahmood, Government High School, Pind Jatla, arraigned as respondent No.3 in the instant appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant entered service as O.T. in BS-9 on 30-8-1989 and he did his B.A. in 1994. And B.Ed. on 31-3-1998, whereas respondent No.3, who has been proceeded ex parte, not having put in appearance despite service through registered post, entered into service on 17-11-1993 as S.V. in BS-9, but did his B.Ed. on 2-12-1990. The Education Department decided to award S.S.T. in Grade-16 to in service candidates according to their quota on the criteria arrived by them in favour of Teachers in functional cadres who possess B..A./B.Ed. degree at the time of consideration for award of S.S.T. grade. Consequently on 28-1-1999, the Director of Secondary Education, Rawalpindi Division awarded S.S.T. grade in BS-16 to respondent No.3 from District Rawalpindi, but did not consider the case of the appellant. His departmental representation was rejected by the Director Public Instructions (SE), Punjab on the ground that the rules framed for the award of S.S.T. grade to in-service lower grade Teachers, which is reproduced as under:-- "While framing the merit list for the award of S.S.T. grade to in-service regular teachers, the date of entry into Government service or the date of declaration of B.Ed. result whichever is later is to be picked up for framing merit according to chronological orders of such dates." Appellate authority went on to hold that the appellant entered the Education Department on 30-8-1989 as O.T. with basic qualification of Metric, whereas Tahir Mahmood was appointed as S.V. Teacher having basic qualification of B.A./B.Ed. on 17-11-1993, therefore according to the rules quoted, Tahir Mahmood being senior was awarded S.S.T. grade on 28-1-1999, whereas the appeal of Qari Hassan Din was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that this Tribunal in a number of cases has deprecated the rule framed by the Education Department taking into consideration the result of B.Ed. as the touchstone of the grant of S.S.T. grade, whereas it should be considered as eligibility to enable the lower grade teachers to seek relief for the grant of S.S.T. grade. Learned District Attorney does not oppose the contention of the learned counsel as it is not in accordance with law.

4. I have heard the arguments at length and also perused the record.

5. Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 envisages the following criteria for determining the seniority:-- "Seniority in a post, service or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted, shall take into effect from the date of regular appointment to that post." Further rule 8(l)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 envisages the continuous appointment in the grade, as a touchstone to determine seniority.

6. It seems that the criteria adopted by the Education Department for the award of S.S.T grade to in-service lower grade teachers as reproduced in the preceding paragraph is in direct conflict with section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 as well as Rule 8(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. What we have to see is that when a Teacher applies for the award of S.S.T. grade in BS-16 or when the Department calls applications for the award of such grade, the concerned teacher is possessed with the required qualification which was fixed as B.Ed. irrespective of the date when he obtained it. While awarding the grade of S.S.T., the touchstone should be in accordance with the section 7 ibid and rule 8 ibid. i.e. continuous service from date of appointment to a particular grade. Both appellant and respondent No.3 entered service on different dates in BS-9. Whether respondent No.3 obtained the degree of B.Ed. earlier than the appellant, is insignificant. The only material date is 28-1-1999 on which respondent No.3 was awarded S.S.T. grade has to be taken into consideration and it has to be seen whether on the said date, appellant did possess the required qualification to make him eligible for seeking the awarded of S.S.T., the answer is in the affirmative.

7. The sum and substance of the discussion is that the appeal of the appellant is accepted, and order dated 15-9-2004, passed by the Director Public Instructions (SE) Punjab, Lahore is set aside. Appellant shall be awarded S.S.T. grade in BS-16 from the date when respondent No.3 was given the same grade i.e. 28-1-1999.

8. I am also told by the departmental representative present that there is a vacancy in the Rawalpindi Division. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./43/PST Appeal accepted. ***