JUDGMENT
H.L. Gokhale, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bodake for the Petitioner and Ms. Bhende. AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are served but nobody appears for them.
2. The Petitioner herein was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school run by Respondent No. 4 – Education Institution situated in District Kolhapur. Respondent No. 5 is the Principal of the Junior College run by the same institution. The case of the Petitioner is that from 1.7.1973 he was working in that school. He has qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed. Subjects of his specialization are history and sociology. He claims to have been up-graded and promoted as a full time teacher in the Junior College from 1.7.1981. It is his case that Respondent No. 3 – Deputy Director of Education granted an approval to his being given appropriate salary in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1030 vide his letter dated 19.11.1984. In fact however, he was not given a salary according to the pay scale. He has been corresponding in his behalf and the Petitioner having failed to obtain necessary relief from the Respondents, has filed this Petition amongst others to quash and set-aside the letter dated 14.12.1993. This letter denies him revised pay on the basis of earlier pay scale of Rs. 600-1030 and accepts his claim only for the pay scale available to the Secondary teachers.
3. Mr. Bodake, the learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that apart from the Deputy Director’s letter dated 19.11.1984 addressed to the school management, auditor of the Institution had also raised an objection as to how the Petitioner was being denied their scales, when he was supposed to be teaching in the Junior College. He draws our attention to the fact that some other teachers were given this higher pay scale of the Junior College.
4. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the Assistant Director of Education, Kolhapur. This reply accepts that prior to the year 1988 such teachers, though initially from the secondary school but functioning in Junior College, were erroneously granted pay scale of Rs. 600-1030, even though the work-load of those teachers in the Junior College was less than 3/4th of their work-load. Reliance is placed on an Annexure 70 (VII)(b) to the Secondary Schools Code containing relevant rules which lay down as to in which circumstances a teacher would be considered as full time teacher in junior college. The relevant rule reads as follows:-
“(b) Minimum work-load required to treat the Junior College Teachers as full-time:- A Junior College teacher, who has less than 3/4th of the prescribed work-load of 17/18 clock hours is to be regarded as a part-time teacher and as such he will be eligible for the remuneration @ Rs. 10 per clock hour sanctioned to the part-time teachers appointed to teach Junior College Classes.”
The affidavit therefore accepts that some other teachers though not having such 3/4th work-load were given pay scale prior to 1988. However, on 1.1.1988 a circular was issued by the Director of Education, pointing out that this particular requirement of 3/4th work-load being executed in the higher secondary school, ought to be strictly followed before recognizing a teacher as full time teacher in junior college or in the higher secondary school. It is not disputed that the Petitioner had only eight clock hours of teaching History. Out of total required 18 clock hours, he was taking lecturer in Psychology for four clock hours. Even if these four clock hours are added he could not say that the had 3/4th work-load in the junior college. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the Petitioner was not eligible to claim to be a full time teacher in junior college and therefore, was not entitled to higher pay scale.
5. It is accepted that he was offered higher pay scale earlier, but it is also recorded that under the advice of their Union, the Petitioner and some other teachers declined to claim that higher pay scale. In paragraph 2, however, it is also pointed out that they pay scale which was Rs. 500-900 for Junior College at that time was probably not accepted because his basic was Rs. 580/- and he was also eligible to Rs. 50/- as special pay. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Petitioner did not accept higher pay scale when it was offered to him earlier and subsequently when he accepted, by that time Respondent No. 1 had implemented the rule strictly and if the Petitioner was not eligible under the Rule, he could not get the benefit therein.
6. We have heard both the sides. We have also perused the material on record. We cannot fault the Respondent for implementing the Rules strictly. The Rule contains a particular requirement for being considered a full time teacher in the junior college. The Petitioner did not possess the requisite eligibility and therefore, he could not get the pay scale, which was to be given to the junior college teachers. Similarly because others were promoted to such pay scale earlier that cannot be the basis for giving him this pay scale. In this behalf, we may rely upon the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 8 in in Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh:-
“8. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the order person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat the illegality over again and again.”
7. In the circumstances, we do not find any error on the part of the Director of Education in addressing the letter dated 14.12.1993 to the Petitioner whereunder he has denied him pay scale of the Junior college while confirming that he will be entitled to the revised pay scale of the secondary school.
8. The Petition is rejected.
9. There will be no order as to costs.