' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- Qazi Sajjad Ahmad, Assistant Education Officer, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded province of Punjab through Secretary Education Lahore and Deputy Director Schools, Lahore Division, as respondents. It has been prayed that by virtue of this appeal he may be allowed S. S. T.
Grade from 3rd August, 1962 at Memo. No, 20127/S.E. 2 dated 16th June, 1980 be set aside as ultra vires as well as void.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as J. E. T. At Government High School, Wahdat Colony, Lahore on 13th December, 1961 when he was C. T. He was awarded S. S. T. Grade on 3rd October, 1962 after B. Ed. Examination which he qualified on 3rd August, 1962. The appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge First Class Lahore who dismissed the same vide his judgment and decree dated 25th September, 1978. Similarly, his appeal filed against the judgment of the Civil Judge First Class was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge on 26th April, 1979.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that Mr. Muhammad Ashraf and ten others, whose details have been given in para. 4 of the appeal, were awarded S. S. T. Grade with effect from the date of qualifying the B. Ed.
Examination although they had joined the Department as C. Ts. It was further argued that if his prayer is not accepted this would tantamount to discrimination which would be absolutely unjustified when others of the same rank and with the same educational qualifications got what he has asked for now.
4. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that 'C. T.' and `S.S.T.' are two different independent cadres of teachers, Appointment to S. S. T. Posts are made by direct recruitment from fresh candidates as well as from in service candidates according to merits and not only on their qualifying the B. Ed. Examination. It has been started that the teachers mentioned in the list (para. 4 of the appeal) were awarded S. S. T. Grade, according to the Service Rules, keeping in view the length of service and number of available vacancies and not merely on their qualifying the B. Ed. Examination. The S. S. T. Grade was awarded to them on the ground that they were working against vacant S. S. T. Posts in their own pay and scale. It was submitted that as the appellant was holding a C. T. Post at the time of declaration of his A result therefore he would only be entitled to this Grade (S. S. T.) from the date of appointment as S. S. T. Which in his case would be 3rd October 1962.
5. We have given or anxious thought to the contentions so raised before us by the parties and find that there is a lot of force in the arguments advanced by the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
6. In view of the abovestated facts which are borne out of the record of this case the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. The result is that we dismiss the appeal. However, there will be no order with regard to costs.