1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant, Mrs. Qamar-un-Nisa, who is a School Teacher, has called in question the order, dated 30-5-1992 of the Director, School Education, Hyderabad Region, whereby her representation seeking promotion to the post of High School Teacher (HST) has been rejected.
2. The appellant's case, as stated in her memo. Of appeal is that she joined as Senior English Teacher in Saint Bonaventures Boys High School, Hyderabad, with effect from 8-4-1970 on consolidated pay of Rs.420 per month. Consequent upon nationalization of educational institution the aforesaid school was also nationalised and her services stood transferred to the Government on the same pay in the scale of Rs300--25--450. The A.-G., Sindh duly verified the above pay and the pay-scale allowed to her. The appellant was then directed to undergo training (i.e. B.Ed.) in the batch of 1975, which she successfully completed is 1976. Despite that she was not given HST-Pay Scale, though two of her colleagues, Mrs. Victoria Jan and Mrs. Mukhtar Memon who also came from Saint Bonaventures Boys' School were allowed the same pay scale in 1975 and 1988 respectively. The appellant's pay scale was, on the contrary, down-graded retrospectively with effect from 16-3-1977 as per letter dated 30-1-1978. Additionally she was also shifted from Boys' School to Girls' School with the result that her seniority was adversely affected. She made several representations for undoing of the wrong done to her but all such representations went unheeded. She was therefore, constrained to approach the High Court in Constitution Petition D-92 of 1991 and it was on direction of the High Court that the impugned order, dated 30-5-1992 was passed, which has been targeted in the present appeal We heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Aqil Awan on behalf of the official respondents. With their assistance we also meticulously scanned the relevant record.
3. The appellant's prayer as contained in her memo. Of appeal reads as under:-- "Under the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the impugned order, dated 30-5-1992 and direct that the appellant be treated as HST
(SET) without any interruption and be allowed the pay of the HST as trained graduate from the date of declaration of her B.Ed. Result (in 1976) like others and accorded her seniority in schools of Boys Wings, as she belongs to Boys High School, award costs and any other relief as deemed just and proper."
4. It would appear from the above prayer that the appellant's main concern was the impugned order, dated 30-5-1992 which she has sought to be set aside. The rest of her prayer was only consequential connected with the annulment of the said order. Although a copy of the representation on which the impugned order was passed was not produced before us, it was however, clear from the said -order that she had made representation dated 5-6-1991 requesting for promotion from the post of J.S.T. To H.S.T. Obviously her that request was turned down by the impugned order for want of vacancy in the post of HST. The question arose if we could interfere with the impugned order and set it aside as desired by the appellant. If the impugned order was set aside, we would thereby be allowing the appellant's promotion to the post of HST which was refused to her by the said order. If there was no vacancy in the said post, as indicated in the order itself, the question of her promotion would not arise. Moreover in view of the bar placed by the proviso (b) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal's Act, 1973, the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order any such promotion. On these grounds alone the appeal was liable to be.
5. Dismissed as non-maintainable.
6. The appellants' learned counsel however, submitted that the appellant was initially allowed the pay-scale of HST which she enjoyed for four years but subsequently by order, dated 30-1-1978, she was deprived of that scale of pay without giving her any show-cause notice. In para. 7 of the written statement, the appellant's above plea has been vehemently denied, adding further that after the appellant came under Government control, she was allowed the running pay scale of JST w.e.f. 16-3-1977 which she not only accepted without any protest but enjoyed all the benefits attached with it. We are inclined to believe the above statement contained in the written statement. If the said pay scale was not acceptable to the appellant or in her own words her pay scale was downgraded, she would have surely protested against it and would have taken appropriate legal steps for redressal of her grievance. Instead of that, she kept silent for 14 years until she made representation on 5-6-1991 and that too not for restoring of her deprived scale but for promotion from JST to HST, Her such silence clearly believed her claim as afterthought. On the contrary the indications available on record are that she was neither recognised as having HST status nor was given the pay scale of the said higher post. Admittedly grant of HST pay scale was inter aha dependent on possessing the B.Ed., which, according to appellant's own admission, she acquired only in 1976. Until then she was obviously untrained. The two instances of her colleagues Mrs. Victoria and Mrs. Mukhtar cited by the appellant would not help her for the simple reason that as pointed out in para. 6 of the written statement, they were allowed the HST scale because they already being Senior English Teachers also obtained the B.Ed. Unlike them the appellant went to do the 18.Ed. On her own. She was not sent for the said course of training on Government expenses as has been claimed by the appellant. Moreover she was not senior to the aforesaid two ladies in the nationalised cadre of Female Teachers. Of course it was not denied on' behalf of the official respondents, that the private school from which appellant had come was Boys Private School (Saint Bonaventure Boys' School). But as pleaded in para. 8 of the written statement, following the nationalisation of the private schools, although Saint Bonaventure School was retained as Boys'
7. School, yet as per policy of the Government the lady teachers serving in the said school prior to nationalization were transferred to Girls' School. As such the appellant came to be included in the nationalized cadre of female teachers.
8. As pointed out above the appellant's claim that she was working as Senior English Teacher before her school (Saint Bonaventure Boys' School) was nationalized has been refuted in the written statement (vide Brief History of the case) in its very opening paragraph. As disclosed in the written statement, she was serving as junior School teacher for the consolidated salary of Rs.420. As she was untrained the question of giving her the pay scale of HST did not arise. This is clear from the fact that the appellant went for doing B.Ed. On her own so as to qualify for the higher pay scale of HST. In this connection our attention was also invited to three documents produced alongwith the written statement. The first document is the appellant's own application which she had obviously made in her own hand on 30-9-1986 for her appointment in the post of HST, she had clearly admitted in the said .Application that she was teaching as JST in St. Bonaventure High School from 1970, the date of her joining that school until she was transferred to Rimayatul Islam Girls High School following the nationalization. Had she been treated as HST without giving her the pay scale of that post after nationalization she would have surely mentioned the same in her said application. If she was deprived of the said higher scale afterwards, that too would have found mention in the above application. Not only this but she would have also prayed in the said application for restoration of the HST rather than for her fresh appointment in the said higher scale., Another document is an extract from the appellant's Service Roll maintained in the St.
9. Bonaventures Boys' School. She is shown as Assistant Teacher (untrained) with pay of Rs.420 per month and not as Senior English Teacher as claimed by her. The third document is pay fixation pro forma whereby her pay was fixed. After perusal of this document, no doubt is left in our mind of that the appellant was drawing her pay of Rs.420 in the pay scale of Rs.200-12-260-15-425 which was subsequently fixed in national pay scale of Rs.370-16-514/18-640. Thus the above three documents have completely demolished the appellant's case. At no time the appellant was recognized as HST or given the pay scale of that post. On the contrary she has herself admitted that she was JST. This was confirmed from her application hereinabove which she made for promotion to the post of HST.
10. Again this was precisely the reason why she did B.Ed. On her own expenses so that she was eligible for promotion to the said post.
11. During the pendency of this appeal while producing a copy of the order, dated 21-11-1993 of the Director, School Education Hyderabad Region whereby amongst others, the appellant has been awarded HST Scale BPS-15 (Rs.1,620-131--3,585) and is allowed BPS 16 as personal to her, the learned AA-G. Urged that the appeal should be dismissed' as having become infructuous. No doubt in pursuance of the above order the appellant even submitted her duly report on 29-i1-1993 and she was allowed to resume duty as HST. Despite this development, the appellant's learned counsel insisted upon pursuing the appeal on the ground that the appellant be given the benefit of higher pay scale of HST right from the date she came under the control of the Government or in the alternative from the date she had obtained the degree of B.Ed. As has already been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, that the appellant's position in the Saint Bonaventures Boys' School from which she came under the Government control was only of Assistant Teacher and not of Senior English Teacher as has been wrongly claimed by her. Moreover she was not eligible for the higher pay scale of Senior English Teacher (HST) as by then she had not yet acquired the training degree of B.Ed. It has also been vehemently refuted in the written statement that following nationalization of her school, she was treated as HST on the analogy of being Senior English Teacher and was accorded the higher pay scale of the said post. In this connection it may be pertinent to refer to sub-para (2) of para. 6 of MLR 118. It reads as under-- "(2)As from the 1st day of October, 1972, the teachers of all privately --managed colleges and privately-managed schools shall be entitled to the same scales of pay, to which the teachers of equivalent, qualification, seniority and experience in the colleges and schools maintained by Government are entitled."
12. As is clear from the above, the appellant was entitled to the same scale of pay, which was admissible to teachers of Government School of equivalent qualifications, seniority and experience.
13. According to the appellant's own admission she was only MA. Having no degree of training (B.Ed.) at the time of nationalization. Moreover, she was only Assistant Teacher and not Senior English Teacher in her original private school from which she came. Her pay at the time of her transfer to Government control was Rs.420, which was allowed to her and was not varied to her disadvantage.
14. Accordingly she was rightly given the status of JST.
15. After nationalized schools came under the Government control, two separate cadres, namely Government Schools Teachers' cadre and nationalized school teachers' cadre were created and separate seniority list for each such cadre was compiled and maintained. Again separate seniority lists were maintained for male and female teachers in each cadre. Consequently, though the appellant originally belonged to Boys' School, she was transferred to girls schools and was borne on the female teachers' seniority list. Therefore, she had Central Excise (Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman) to wait for her promotion to HST in accordance with the seniority position assigned to her. In support of her claim for promotion to the above position she has cited the instances of two teachers namely Mrs. Victoria and Mrs. Mukhtar. No doubt, both of them also came from Saint Bonaventure Boys' High School from which the appellant came, but as mentioned in the written statement unlike the appellant, they were Senior English Teachers, though untrained in the said school. As soon as they secured the B.Ed. Degree, they were promoted to higher post of HST. But that was not the case of the appellant who was far junior to them. Precisely for the reason of her seniority, that the appellant was not promoted immediately after she passed B.Ed. In 1976. Now that the appellant has been promoted to HST alongwith 25 other teachers recently by order, dated 21- i1-1993, presumably according to her seniority, the appellant's present appeal has become infructuous. But even otherwise, in view of the above discussion, the appeal is without substance and as such it is dismissed with no order as to costs.