ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Mu. Mu. No. 48290/D2/E3/2013 dated 09.03.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant selection grade of pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.11.1995.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Mu. Mu. No. 50846/D2/E3/2019 dated 20.10.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant selection grade of pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 11.03.1996.

1. As the issue that arises for consideration in both the writ petitions is one and the same, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in the 5th respondent-School on 01.11.1995 and 11.03.1996 respectively and their appointments were also approved by the 4th respondent through proceedings dated 14.12.1995 and 20.03.1996 respectively. Both the petitioners were holding the qualification of Bachelors Degree together with Bachelor Degree in Education, i.e. B.Ed. The petitioners herein claim for counting of their services from the date of their initial appointment with effect from 01.11.1995 and 11.03.1996 respectively for the purpose of granting Selection Grade scale in terms of the policy of the Government providing for awarding of Selection Grade/Special Grade etc. on completion of service of 10 years/20 years respectively. The claims of the petitioners were rejected by the 4th respondent by issuing the impugned orders dated 09.03.2020 and 20.10.2020 respectively on the ground that the service rendered by the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers prior to undergoing the Training in Child Psychology will not be counted for the purpose of granting Selection Grade. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners approached this Court.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that their appointments were already approved and therefore, the question of treating their services as approved only on they undergoing the Training in Child Psychology does not arise and there cannot be any two approvals for the very same appointment. It is also contended that similarly situated candidates were extended the benefit of counting the service from the date of their initial appointment and this Court also passed various orders from time to time extending such benefits. They also placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos. 19571 to 19573 of 2013, dated 06.01.2014 and a judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) Nos.1455 to 1457 of 2014, dated 12.07.2017, confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge. The petitioners also placed on record the relevant proceedings issued by the respondents complying with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) Nos. 19571 to 19573 of 2013. Thus, the petitioners claim that they are also entitled to be treated on par with the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 19571 to 19573 of 2013.

4. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the service rendered by the petitioners prior to they undergoing the Training in Child Psychology cannot be counted for any purpose, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. Nos. 991 of 1998 and batch cases and the consequential Government Order issued in G.O. (Ms) No. 155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002. It is also contended that the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A. (MD) Nos.1455 to 1457 of 2014, dated 12.07.2017 is deviated and a contrary view was taken by another Division Bench in W.A. (MD) Nos.74 of 2015 and 957 of 2016, dated 21.03.2016. Thus, it is contended that both the