IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Arensen Aier S/o Shri Wapanglemba – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 8 of 2019
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226, 306 – Nagaland School Education Service Rules 2017 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Power of certain States in Part B of First Schedule to impose restrictions on trade and commerce – Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and also heard, Learned Government Advocate appearing for state respondents – Held, submission of learned counsel of petitioners that since pay scale of P.B. with was given in advertisement same cannot be change does not seem to hold much water because of what has been stated above – Further, grievance of petitioners is on change of pay scale and not on criteria or conditions for selection methods in advertisement – Had that been so their claim that rule of game cannot be changed when game has started would have applied but that is not issue in this case – So that principle of law will not apply in this case – In view of what has been stated above, court of the view that petitioners have not made out a case for this Court to interfere in policy making domain of State respondents – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
1. Heard Mr. Temjen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the state respondents. The brief facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition by the petitioners are as follows:
On 28.8.2017 an advertisement inviting eligible candidates for recruitment to 91 posts of Graduate Teachers in Mathematics subject and 53 posts of Graduate Teachers in Science subject was published by the Principal Director, School Education, Government of Nagaland and in that the scale of pay for the post advertised was given as P.B. Rs. 9,300-34,800 G.P. Rs. 4200/-. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued on 20.10.2017 by the same Principal Director inviting eligible candidates from 6 tribes of ENPO areas for filling up 23 post of Graduate Teachers in Mathematics and 13 post of Graduate Teachers in Science subject. However, in the second advertisement, no pay scale was given unlike in the first advertisement. Following the publication of the advertisement the petitioners applied for the post and they were selected by the Selection Board, and after their selection, appointment orders were issued on 18.9.2018 with the same terms and conditions but as for the pay and allowances it was clearly mentioned in the appointment orders that they shall be paid in the pay matrix level 9 plus all other allowances as admissible under the rules in Nagaland from time to time with effect from the date of joining the post. After receiving the appointment orders, the petitioners joined their respective post. But not being satisfied with the pay scale mentioned in their appointment orders, they submitted a representation dated 5.10.2018 to the Principal Secretary, School Education, Government of Nagaland and the Director of School Education, Government of Nagaland requesting them to rectify the same as per the pay scale mentioned in the first advertisement i.e. the advertisement dated 28.8.2017. Since no positive response was received they once again submitted another representation on 30.11.2018 to the same authorities. But this time also no positive response was received by them hence, they are here before this Court praying for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to pay their monthly salaries as per the pay scale mentioned in the first advertisement dated 28.8.2017.
2. The case of the petitioners as submitted by their learned counsel Mr. Temjen is as follows:
(i) That since the advertisement has specifically mentioned the scale of pay for the post of Graduate Teachers and, no further notification was issued changing or altering the same, the respondents are bound by the advertisement issued by them and they cannot change the same any longer, particularly when the examination has been conducted in pursuance of the advertisement and results have been declared.
(ii) That the respondents had committed illegality in having changed the pay scale of the petitioners inasmuch as no notice or opportunity was given to them before the same was given effect to.
(iii) That while giving higher scale to teachers who are appointed on contract basis, the pay of the petitioners have been lowered even though they are regularly appointed, therefore, the same is liable to be rectified.
(iv) That the two advertisements issued for recruitment to the post of Graduate teachers in the subjects; Mathematics and Science were issued on 28.8.2017 and 20.10.2017 under which the new pay scale was introduced whereas the Nagaland School Education Service Rules 2017 came into force only on 29.11.2017. Therefore, the provisions of the Rules could not have been applied in the case of the petitioners since doing so would mean applying the same retrospectively.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his submission and the same are reproduced here-below:
B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Mysore
Calton vs. The Director of Education and Another
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others
N.T. Devin Katti and Others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission
State of Orissa and Another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others
Secretary A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Swapna and Others
SupremeToday
Point of Law : It is akin to doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burde....
The court held that the service conditions of the petitioner should be governed by the rules in effect at the time of appointment, affirming that subsequent rules cannot retroactively impose new qual....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prescribed scale of pay in the recruitment notification for direct recruitment to government schools prevails over claims for pay protecti....
Circular or resolution passed by Government would not apply to the staff of the Corporation as they are covered under special law, i.e. GIDC (Staff) Regulation, 1963.
The service conditions for Teachers in Aided Schools and Government Schools are distinct and separate, and the appointment based on the recruitment process is independent, precluding the entitlement ....
The fixed pay policy for Group-C and Group-D employees is constitutional, aimed at employment generation, and does not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work without proving equality in al....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.