The court established that equal pay claims must consider differences in qualifications and recruitment methods, affirming distinctions between teachers based on their appointment classifications.

JUDGMENT :

Ms.Mary Jacklin Pushpa, was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 11.06.1997 in the All Saints Higher Secondary School, a minority Educational Institution under the management of Roman Chatholic Diocese of Kottar. At the time of appointment, she possessed B.SC., B.Ed., degree. Since, she did not possess the requisite educational qualification for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the Education Department declined to approve her appointment. At the time of her appointment, B.T or B.Ed Degree holders were not eligible for the appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher post, as per G.O. Ms.No: 559 of the Education Department, dated 11.07.1995. The validity of G.O Ms.559 was upheld by this Court with a direction that the teachers, who were appointed prior to 19.05.1998 without qualification, must undergo one month child Psychology training and thereafter, the District Education Office to approve the appointments with effect from 02.06.2003.

2. Later, the Government took a policy decision to upgrade the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as Middle School Teacher and in future to appoint teachers with B.Ed degree qualification for the said post, with a specific time pay of scale and issued G.O Ms.No.79(Secondary Education) dated 14.06.2002.

3. Alleging that she and the persons appointed after 14.06.2002 as Middle School Teachers possess same qualification and discharging same work, i.e., teaching students of 6th, 7th and 8th Standards, Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No. 114870 of 2014 filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus for considering her representation for pay parity along with Graduate Teachers in the Middle School.

4. The State through Education Department filed counter placing records and contended that though in G.O.559 dated 11.07.1995 there is a specific instruction not to appoint the persons with B.T.degree for the post of Secondary Grade teachers, the writ petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the minority institution with a higher qualification subsequent to the said GO. In reverence to the Judgment of the High Court rendered in the batch of writ petitions filed challenging G.O.559, the Goverment issued G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 and her appointment was approved with effect 02.06.2003, after she got herself qualified in Child Psychology by getting trained for 6 months in District Institute of Education and Training (DIET). In view of change in syllabi, the Government took a policy decision to appoint in future the teachers for 6th to 8th standards with degree qualification. Accordingly G.O.No.79 dated 14.06.2002 was issued. The writ petitioner who was regularised in service pursuant to G.O.No.155 after getting qualified in Child Psychology cannot be treated par with the graduate teachers who were appointed after G.O.No.79. Her appointment in the vacancy of Lily Pushpa, a Secondary grade teacher. So, her pay scale can only be the pay scale of Secondary Grade Teacher. She will be entitled for Graduate Teacher pay scale only, when she is promoted in the vacancy of Graduate Teacher post. The writ petition filed belatedly seeking seniority and pay of Graduate teacher is not maintainable.

5. In short, the State contention is that, the writ petitioner who did not possess Teacher Training Certificate/ Diploma in Teacher Training whic