IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the entitlement to grade pay for Physical Instructors is determined by their qualifications as per Central Government guidelines, and that administrative decisions cannot contravene established judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, ACJ.

This batch of Letters Patent Appeals is directed against the common order pronounced by the writ Court in a batch of writ petitions vide W.P.(S) No. 3894 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 2491 of 2009, W.P.(S) No. 4051 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 4145 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 6345 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 437 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 4366 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No. 1196 of 2022.

2. The issue before the writ Court was whether the Physical Instructors of +2 schools are entitled for grade pay of Rs.4800/-. The State of Jharkhand set up a stand that the Physical Instructors of +2 schools shall be provided grade pay of Rs.4200/- and not of Rs.4800/- if they do not possess the qualification prescribed by the Central Government. The further case pleaded by the State of Jharkhand was that the Physical Instructors were appointed under the erstwhile State of Bihar and presently their counter-parts in the State of Bihar are getting grade pay of Rs.4200/- and, therefore, parity and uniformity should be maintained in the pay scale and grade pay of the Physical Instructors working in the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. The writ Court referred to a decision in W.P.(S) 2696 of 2009 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 496 of 2015 and formed an opinion that it was bound by the previous judgments of this Court. The writ Court also referred to “R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State” AIR 1937 PC 27, “State of M.P v. Mansinghra” AIR 1958 MP 1413, “H.C. Suman and Anr. v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.” (1991) 4 SCC 485, “S. Nagraj & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.” 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595, “Kuleshwar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors.” (2013) 12 SCC 508 and “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip” (2020) 11 SCC 144 and held that the successor in office of the Director, Secondary Education had no power to review the decision of his predecessor. The writ Court further held that administrative circulars and government resolutions are subservient to legislative mandate and cannot run contrary to the Constitutional norms and statutory principles. The writ Court therefore held that the Physical Instructors are entitled for grade pay of Rs.4800/- and issued a direction for consequential payment of arrears of salary and other benefits to them.

3. Briefly stated, the programme of vocational education was introduced in the National Policy of Education, 1986. The State of Bihar implemented the policy decision of the Central Government and 25 vocational courses in six major areas were introduced in a hundred and forty-eight +2 schools. As per the staffing pattern for the vocational course, a provision for three Laboratory Assistants for vocational courses and other faculty staff, LDC etc. were prescribed by the Directorate of Education, NCERT. The qualification of the Vocational Teachers/Instructors was equivalent to the full-time teachers appointed by the Government. The State of Jharkhand has brought on record a document issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Seva Board which gives details of 25 advertisements for appointment of full-time Physical Instructors under 25 different trades. The said document is the advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Physical Instructors whereunder the minimum educational qualification was prescribed. This is the stand of the respondents that they possessed higher qualification of Post Graduation in their respective stream and that is not controverted by the State of Jharkhand before the writ Court. In a situation like this, it has to be inferred in law that the advertisement at page no. 29 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20th June 2024 was issued following the Central Government guidelines about the educational qualification for appointment on the post of Physical Instructors.

4. However, what is being contended by Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II is that this Court has held in unc