1992 (4) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is salary in the pay scale of Rs. 160-360/- per month which was refused by the appellant State. He made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Rajasthan which was allowed by the impugned judgment. 3. Admittedly, the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 160-360/- per month is allowed to trained teachers. Since the petitioner was not trained, he was appointed at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uring which period he was an untrained teacher. This view has been challenged on behalf of the appellant as untenable. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, has, in reply, contended that both the trained and untrained teachers have been performing identical duties and there should, therefore, be parity in their salary in accordance with the well established doctrine of equal pay for equal work....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... violative of the constitutional provisions. This view has been reiterated in V. Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh  and other cases. The efficiency of a person having a higher qualification is likely to be better than a less qualified person, provided of course, the qualification is of a nature likely to enable him to perform his duty better, and for this reason, there cannot be any legit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l-established for upholding and giving effect to all the provisions as far as it may be possible, and for avoiding the interpretation which may render any of them ineffective or otiose. In the present case Rule 29 dealing with payment of increment is in general terms while the Schedule in the 1969 Rules makes a special provision governing the untrained teachers, attracting the maxim ''gene....