A.P Chowdhri, J.:— The significant question raised in this bunch of Civil Writ Petitions No. 770, 393, 374, 901, 1039, 2326, 3142, 3430, 3447, 3514, 3581, 3609, 6327 of 1989 and 11318 of 1988, is whether teachers in lower echelons of the school cadre of Haryana are automatically entitled to the higher scale of Lecturers on acquiring academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturers.

2. The facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 770 of 1989 are fairly representative and may be stated thus;

3. The petitioners are Teachers/Masters/Mistresses in different schools of Haryana. They possess or have acquired Post Graduate qualifications. They claim Lecturers' scale from the date of acquisition of the Post Graduate qualifications. They have based their claim on instructions of the Government before and after the re-organisation of the State of Punjab under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. According to the petitioners, the relevant instructions have been interpreted to link pay scales with qualifications irrespective of the post held by the incumbents. Their claims is that if the aforesaid principle is applied to the case of the petitioners, they are entitled to the lecturer's scale from the date of acquisition of qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer.

4. A few facts, about which there is no dispute may be stated. Several years back there used to be three types of schools, namely; Primary upto 4th class, Middle upto 8th class and High School upto 10th class. One more category was added in 1963-64. These schools were called High Secondary Schools upto 11th class. In 1985, the High Secondary Schools were upgraded into Senior Secondary Schools with classes upto plus 2 level.

5. Formerly, there were posts of Teachers and Masters. Higher posts of Lecturers in the school cadre were created for the first time in 1963-64 when Higher Secondary Schools were established. The scales of pay for the posts of Lecturers together with the qualifications prescribed for the same from time to time are given in Annexure R/1 filed with the additional written statement. Prior to 1.2.1983, there were two scales for Lecturers, lower for M.A/M.Sc IIIrd Division and higher for M.A/M.Sc Ist and IInd Division. With effect from 1.2.1981, the two scales were unified into a single scale. For future, it was decided that only persons with M.A/M.Sc/M.Com in Ist or IInd Division would be appointed as Lecturess. With effect from 19.3.1985, it was decided that only persons with at least 50 per cent marks in M.A/M.Sc/M.Com would be appointed as Lecturers. This decision holds good till date. It may be mentioned here that the decision to stick to 50 per cent minimum marks has been strictly applied and relaxation of even a fraction of 1 per cent marks was resisted and the above decision of the Government was upheld by this Court in Mohammed Yusuf v. State of Haryana, 1988 (7) S.L.R 241 Letters Patent Appeal against the above decision was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 271 of 1989 decided on 9.5.1989

6. A circular letter (Annexure P/2) dated 23.7.1957 was issued conveying decision of the State Government of the composite State of Punjab a revise scales of pay of subordinate services and removing certain anomalies on the basis of the recommendations made by a Pay Revision Committee appointed by the Government. The revision of pay scales was made effective from 1.5.1957 Paragraph 3 of the above letter referred to Teachers in the Education Department. The Teachers were divided into two categories according to their qualifications. Category ‘A’ related to B.A/B.Sc/B. Com./B.Sc(Agriculture) and B.T/diploma in Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Training. Category ‘B’ was further sub divided into four groups. The first group consisted of Matriculates with Basic Training (including J.B.T). The second group consisted of J.B Ts (including Assistant Mistresses with B.A/Inter/Matric plus J.A.V Training. Group HI related to Shastris, Gianis, Prabhakars, Drawing Masters and Craftsman Certificates holders as also S.Ts including S.Vs in Physical Education or Agriculture. And finally Group IV related to untrained Teachers with qualifications like B.Com B.Sc (Agriculture) etc. In addition there were smaller categories of special posts, such as, Headmasters/Headmistresses, District Inspectors, Inspectresses of Schools, with qualifications of category ‘A’ above. Different scales of pay were provided for the above categories and different groups in category ‘B.’.

7. With effect from 1.11.1966, the State of Punjab was reorganised under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 and the State of Haryana came into existence. There was an Education Commission popularly known as Kothari Commission at the national level. The Commission made recommendations regarding further revision of pay scales of Teachers who were divided into several categories. The basis for classification adopted by the Commission was academic qualifications. The recommendations of the Kothari Commission were mostly accepted by the State of Haryana. The pay scales of Teachers were revised and the decision of the Government is contained in letter (Annexure P/3) dated 5.1.1968 Various categories of Teachers and the revised scales of pay were set out in the letter. The letter also fixed the percentage in which the various incumbents were to be divided for purposes of higher scale or the lower scale as mentioned in the letter.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the circular instructions (Annexure P/2) dated 23.7.1957 had been authoritatively interpreted to link the scales of pay with the qualifications and the principle was, therefore, established that if the Teachers acquire the qualifications prescribed for a higher post, they are entitled to the pay scale attaching to the higher post irrespective of the fact whether he is actually appointed against the higher post or not. According to the learned counsel, it was only a natural step that when the petitioners acquired academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, they should be given those pay scales irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed Lecturers or not. In this connection, reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the observations occurring in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (4) S.L.R 4 (S.C) as under:—

“It is thus seen that from 1957 to 1980 whenever the question arose, it was always accepted that teachers who acquired the B.T or B.Ed, qualification would be entitled to the higher scale of pay as soon as they acquired the qualification irrespective of the dates when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters.”

“The 1968 order must be read in the light of the 1957 order and the report of the Kothari Commission which was accepted. If so read there can be no doubt that the Government never intended to retract from the principle that teachers acquiring the B.T or B.Ed, would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualifications”.

9. The learned counsel highlighted the fact that in Chaman Lal's case, the instructions (Annexure P/3) dated 5.1.1968 had also been referred to and it was observed by their Lordships that the same must be read in the light of 1957 order and report of the Kothari Commission. It was, therefore, emphasised that like the 1957 order, 1968 order must, therefore, be held to link pay scales with qualifications and not with the post.

10. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand is that the posts of Lecturers had been created for the first time in 1963-64 and that too in the context of a separate category of schools, namely; the Higher Secondary Schools. The said category of Schools was nowhere in existence at the time of 1957 instructions (Annexure P/2) and if the instructions of 1968 Annexure P/3 were to be linked with the instructions of 1957, the same could not possibly cover the posts of Lecturers. It was also pointed out that the post of Lecturer is filled by promotion to the extent of 75 per cent from the feeder line of Masters. The Teachers' whether adjusted or unadjusted could not claim the Lecturers' scale without being promoted or appointed by direct mode of selection-. Learned counsel also emphasised that for promotion to the post of Lecturer it was laid down that only M.A/M.Sc with at least 50 per cent marks is eligible. If the stand of the petitioners is accepted, it would mean that even M.A/M.Sc IIIrd Divisioner would be entitled to Lecturer scale which, on the face of it, is ridiculous and could never have been intended. It was also argued that keeping in view the requirements as also the available resources, the State Government had fixed the strength of the cadre. Viewed in this context, it could not be intended that whosoever acquires the qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer will automatically become entitled to the scale prescribed for that post. It was further argued that there was a clear distinction between those who possessed the higher qualifications when they entered the service as Teacher carrying a lower scale of pay and those who acquired the qualification later on in the course of service. This aspect had been referred to at page 9 of the report in Chaman Lal's case (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Reliance was placed on Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab 1985 (3) S.L.R 259, in which the Supreme Court held that appointment as Lecturer was necessary for claiming higher scale prescribed for the post of Lecturer.

11. The earliest case on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia 1975 (2) S.L.R 621 (S.C). Originally C.W.P No. 3301 of 1969 (Kirpal Singh Bhatia v. Union of India) was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the decision is reported as Kirpal Singh Bhatia v. Union of India 1970 Cur. LJ. 811. Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court and the judgment is reported as Union of India v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia, 1972 S.L.R 402. Thereafter, the State Government took the case to the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of this Court was affirmed. A careful reading of the aforesaid judgments reveals the following notable features:—

(i) The circular letter dated 23.7.1957 expressly categorised the Teachers “according to their qualifications” in the context of the revision of the pay scales.

(ii) The President of the Pepsu Unadjusted B.T Teachers' Union, sought a clarification whether the Teachers holding B.A.B.T/B.A.B.Ed qualifications would henceforth be placed in category ‘A’ and the above presumption was confirmed in writing by Secretary to Government, Punjab, Finance Department. Both the High Court as well as Supreme Court heavily relied on the above confirmation of the presumption in coming to the conclusion which they did.

(iii) The service rules which govern certain classes of Teachers in the School Cadre are the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 1955. The service rules contain an express provision provision for promotion from lower grade in the service to a higher grade in the service. Further the rules lay down that the incumbents shall be entitled to such scales of pay as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time,

(iv) In the High Court, it was admitted that certain persons had been given higher scale on acquisition of qualifications with effect from 1.5.1957

12. It was in view of the above noted facts and circumstances that it was held that the circular letter dated 23.7.1957 granted scales of pay according to the qualifications and the Teachers though in category ‘B’ had become entitled to the scale of Teachers in category ‘A’ on their acquiring the qualifications prescribed for Teachers in category ‘A’.

13. Relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Jagdish Mittar v. Union of India I.L.R (1969) (II) Punjab and Haryana 96, the learned Single Judge in Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case (supra) restricted the arrears of the higher scale to a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the writ petition.

14. Following the decision in Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case (supra), a number of decisions have been rendered in which it has been held on the basis of the instructions Annexure P/2 dated 23.7.1957 that on acquisition of higher qualifications, the Teachers became entitled to the scale of the higher post regardless of the fact that they were appointed to that higher post or not. These decisions are noted below:—

(i) Labh Singh Garcha Teacher v. State of Punjab 1976 SLWR 476 (D.B). The appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 926-27 of 1978 on 7.8.1979 Following the decision in Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case, it was held that on acquiring qualifications, the petitioners became entitled to the scale of pay of category ‘A’.

(ii) Om Parkash Arya, Teacher v. The State of Haryana (1988-2) P.L.R 538 (Full Bench). It was held that persons falling in Group T became entitled to the pay scale of Group IP of category ‘B’ of the letter dated 23.7.1957

(iii) Rajinder Kumari v. State of Punjab 1988 (4) S.L.R 297.

(iv) Jetha Singh v. State of Punjab 1988 (4) S.L.R 300 (D.B).

(v) Nasib Kaur v. State of Punjab 1988 (4) S.L.R 301 (DB).

15. In the decisions mentioned at Sr. No. (iii) to (v) above it was held that on acquisition of the qualifications, the petitioners were entitled to higher scale of pay in terms of the circular instructions dated 23.7.1957

16. Two Civil Writ Petitions No. 7553 of 1976 and 1220 of 1978 were disposed of by a common judgment by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners in C.W.P No. 1220 of 1978, took the judgment of this Court in appeal before the Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court is reported in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (1987) 3 SCC 113 : AIR 1987 S.C 1621 : [(1987) (4) S.L.R 4)]. The claim of the petitioners therein was to higher scale of pay on acquisition of B.T/B.Ed qualification from the date of acquiring those qualifications. The claim of the petitioners was allowed. It was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that from 1957 to 1980 whenever the question arose, it was always accepted that Teachers who acquired the B.T or B.Ed, qualifications would be entitled to the higher scale of pay as soon as they acquire the qualifications irrespective of the fact when they were adjusted against the post of Masters.

17. There is no dispute that there is no reference to Lecturers in the instructions of 1957 and there is no express order in the 1968 circular that persons acquiring academic qualifications prescribed for Lecturers will become entitled to that scale. The limited question requiring consideration is whether by necessary intendment it can be held that the instructions of 1968 granted to the Teachers/Masters working in the lower scales of pay, grades of Lecturers on acquiring academic qualifications prescribed for Lecturers.

18. I have given the matter my anxious consideration. The Teachers in the school cadre are governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 1955 framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 6 of the said rules lays down that the service shall comprise of the posts shown in Appendix ‘A’. It further lays down that the Government has full powers to revise Appendix ‘A’ at any time.- The post of Lecturer does not find mention in the Appendix. If it was intended to include the posts of Lecturers in the service, the Government would have amended Appendix ‘A’ to include the posts of Lecturers therein. The posts of Lecturers are, therefore, outside the cadre in question. Rule 7(i)(c) of the 1955 Rules further shows that one of the modes of appointment to the posts in the service is by promotion from lower grades in the service to the higher grade therein. In other words, the various posts in the school cadre formed, as it were, a single integrated unit having various rungs. Reference to the various categories in the 1957 letter shows that depending on the qualifications different scales of pay were provided. Persons with lower, qualifications were given lower pay scales while persons with higher qualifications were given higher pay scales. It bears repetition that the 1957 letter expressely classified Teachers of the school cadre in various categories according to qualifications. In the detailed facts and circumstances as analysed while dealing with the case of Kirpal Singh Bhatia (supra), it was held that on acquisition of higher qualifications, the persons holding posts in the lower grades became entitled to higher scale of pay. This is perfectly understandable as the various posts as well as scales were contained in the school cadre and there was provision for promotion from lower scale to higher scale. The posts of Lecturers were held to be Ex-cadre posts in Mohammed Yusif's case (supra) (vide paragraphs 2 and 6). No rules have been framed governing the conditions of service of Lecturers and they are being governed by Executive Instructions as referred to in the statement Annexure R/1 filed with the return. To recapitulate it was decided that from 7.2.1981, only persons with Ist or IInd Division would be appointed as Lecturers. One Ramesh Chand Tyago M.A IIIrd Division was appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis on 12.8.1981 He was informed of the above decision to appoint only Ist or IInd Division M.A to the post of Lecturer. He was relieved of his post after coming into force of the above instructions. He challenged his removal through C.W.P No. 632 of 1986. The writ petition was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 3.3.1986 S.L.P 5400 of 1986 was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by order dated 2.3.1987 against the above order. In other words, the decision of the State Government to prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post of Lecturer being Ist or IInd Division M.A/M.Sc or M.Com has been upheld by the Apex Court. If the claim of the petitioners is allowed, even M.A.M Sc. IIIrd Division would become entitle, to the scale of pay of the Lecturer. This could never have been intended. It is well known that in every service a certain specified number of posts are sanctioned. This is necessary on the basis of the requirements of the service and the resources at the disposal of the State Government. For instance, it may be an ideal situation that every village should have a suitable school, High School, Senior Secondary School and even a College depending upon its population and requirements. It is further very desirable that such educational institutions should be manned by highly qualified Teachers and to attract real talent, they should be paid very highly but is that possible within the constraints of the resources available to the Government. It is against this background that the letter of 1968 deserves to be considered. The onus of showing that the order of 1968 automatically granting them the higher scale of Lecturers on acquiring qualifications for the post of Lecturer is thus heavy on the petitioners.

19. The various decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners to which reference has been made above including the decision in Chaman Lal's case (supra), are confined to the grant of pay scale attaching to one category of the persons holding posts in the lower category in terms of the 1957 order. These authorities cannot be taken to lay down that where a teacher acquires the qualifications prescribed for Lecturers, he shall be granted pay scales of the Lecturers. It is settled law that a decision is not to be read as a provision of statute (see Sreenivasan General Traders etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 : AIR 1983 S.C 1246).

20. The Kothari Commission report was also substantially accepted by the State of Punjab. Its recommendations were implemented by circular letter dated 29.7.1967 Certain Masters and Mistresses in the school run by the Punjab Government and possessing Post Graduate Degrees put forward a claim that they were entitled to Lecturers' scale. The claim of the petitioners was dismissed and the decision is reported in Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab 1985 (3) S.L.R 259. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish Gurpal Tuli's case by pointing out that the terms of the letter dated 29.7.1967 and the subsequent clarifications dated 19.2.1979 and 20.9.1979 made by the State Government distinguished the case from the case of Haryana where there was only 1968 letter with no clarification on the lines of Punjab. The learned counsel, however, forgets that which was clarified in the aforesaid letters was implied in the 1968 letter.

21. For these reasons, I am firmly of the view that the 1968 letter cannot be taken to mean by necessary implication that on acquisition of qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, the Teachers/Masters working in the lower scales would automatically become entitled to the scale of Lecturer. I, therefore, find no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

22. Petitions dismissed.