1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

That next contention of the appellant's learned counsel was that as the appellant had entered service much before the promulgation 1989 Rules, she was governed by the Recruitment Rules of 1974. These Rules were issued by the Finance Department vide its notification dated 4th June, 1974. As stated in clauses (iv) and (v) of S.No. 2 of the Schedule of the said notification, NPS‑8 was admissible to Drawing Teachers possessing the qualifications of Matric with Inter Drawing Grade Examination. Since the appellant had the above qualifications at the time of her entry in service in 1981, she was accommodated in the post of Drawing Teacher in BPS‑

8. Even according to the 1974 Rules higher pay scale (NPS‑14) was allowed to only Drawing Master with qualifications of Graduate with Drawing Master Examination Certificate vide clause (iv) of S.No.3 of the Schedule. The same clause however indicates . that lesser qualifications of Grade with DTC/IGD/ATC were acceptable only in the case of existing incumbents. The question arose if the appellant was existing incumbent in terms of above clause. Prima facie the existing incumbents were those who already existed at the time of enforcement of the 1974 Rules. The appellant having entered service in 1981, could not be regarded as existing incumbent. Moreover, "Existing Civil Servant" was defined in clause (b) of rule 2 of 1974 Rules as under:‑ "(b) `Existing Civil Servant' means a civil servant who is in the teaching staff of Government immediately before the publication of the rules." The appellant was obviously not covered by the above definition, as she was not included in the teaching staff of Government prior to coming into force of 1974 Rules. Consequently even under the said rules of 1974 the appellant was not qualified to be entitled to higher scale of pay (i.e. BPS‑14). Apart from above, the appellant herself has produced one circular letter dated 23rd September, 1991 of the Director, School Education, Karachi addressed to various District Education Officers and Principals of High School, wherein the upgradation of the posts of Drawing Teachers and the implication thereof had been elaborately explained. The relevant portion of the above circular letter is reproduced as under:‑ "As per Sindh Education Department (Non‑Gazetted) Pay Revision Rules, 1974 applicable from 1‑3‑1972 or from the date of option issued vide No. FD(SR‑IV)1‑(12)/74‑(A), dated 4‑6‑1974 the Finance Department prescribed the below noted qualifications for the posts of Drawing Masters (NPS‑14)‑ (i) Graduates with Drawing Master Examination Certificate. (ii) Graduates with DTC/IGD/ATC (for existing incumbents only). Note:‑‑This means that the qualifications at (i) above are for those D.Ts. who enter into service after 4‑6‑1974 against the available posts of D.Ts. in NIPS‑14; and qualifications at (ii) above are meant for the D.Ts. who are in service on 4‑6‑1974." Thus, it has been made clear even in the above circular, that the appellant not being existing incumbent within the meaning of the 1974 Rules, she was entitled to higher scale of pay (BPS‑14) only when she had the qualifications of being graduate with Drawing Master Examination Certificate which, as pointed out above, she had all along been lacking. As such she was not entitled to BPS‑

14. Just at the stage of arguments, the appellant's learned counsel showed us photo copies of some documents including the circular letter dated 31‑12‑1991 of the Director, School Education, Karachi. It would be pertinent to reproduce para 1 of the said circular as under:‑‑ "In the light of representation received from President of Karachi Drawing Teachers Association vide his Letter No, 2012/91, dated 20‑12‑1991 the condition No. (i) i.e. Graduates with Drawing Master Examination Certificate has b9en waived in case of existing Drawing Teacher employed prior to issuance of Recruitment Rules vide No. (E‑VI)I(56)‑/89, dated 20‑3‑1989." It seems that the condition No.' (i) i.e. Graduates with Drawing Master Examination Certificate, has been waived in case of existing Drawing Teachers employed prior to issuance of Recruitment Rules notified on 20‑3‑1989. In the light of the said waiver of the educational qualifications two office orders were issued by the Directorate of School Education, Karachi on 23‑10‑1993 and 10‑11‑1993 whereby as many as 73 Drawing Teachers in BPS‑9 were given the benefit of higher pay scales of BPS‑14 and BPS‑

15. But the name of the appellant was missing even from the above two orders. Almost simultaneously the learned AA: G. produced a photo copy of the order dated 28‑12‑1993 of the Directorate of School Education, Karachi, whereby the above two office orders dated 23‑10‑1993 and 10‑11‑1993 were kept in abeyance. In this connection the learned AA.‑G. submitted that under no circumstances the educational qualifications prescribed as the eligibility for appointment/promotion to any post, could be relaxed No doubt it is provided in rule 12(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, that candidates for appointment must possess the educational qualifications and experience laid down for that appointment. Of course the requirement of the above rule could be relaxed or modified by rule?making authority i.e. Chief Minister. There was no indication in the circular letter dated 31‑12‑1991 issued by the Director, School Education that the Chief Minister had approved the waiver of important educational qualification. It appears to us that perhaps the Chief Minister was not taken into confidence before issuing of the above circular letter and two office orders based on that circular, giving benefit of higher scale of pay to a number of Drawing Teachers. That seems to be the reason for putting the said two office orders in abeyance. In any case since we were not shown due amendment of rule 12(1) of the above rules or the aforesaid waiver made with approval of the rule‑making authority we would not attach any importance to Director's circular letter dated 31‑12‑1991 whereby the important condition of educational qualification for allowing the post of higher pay scale had been waived. Lastly the argument of the appellant's learned counsel was that the appellant could continue to work in the upgraded post on the basis of her original qualifications she possessed for the post of BPS‑

8. The argument was obviously untenable. The upgraded post being in BPS‑14 was definitely higher in status than the post in BPS‑8/9. The duties and functions carried by the two posts were also different. Furthermore, different qualifications were prescribed for the said posts, each time either by the rules or by the amendments made therein. Moreover, the process of upgradation of the posts was undertaken separately from promotion of lower‑grade Drawing Teachers to higher upgraded posts. In view of above discussion the appellant has absolutely no case and therefore the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./429/Sr.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.