IMPORTANT POINT
The concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment contra-distinguished from identical treatment.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 14-Equality before law-Concept does not involve idea of absolute equality-Similarity of treatment contra-distinguished from identical treatment is guaranteed-Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination.
       (ii) Karnataka State Civil Service (Absorption of Persons Working as Part-time Lecturers in the Karnataka Education Department of College Education) Special Rules, 1996-Rule 2(b)(iii)-Regularisation of service of Stop-gap (Part-time Lecturers-Rule is legislative in character-Would have force as if State Legislature has framed Rules-Rule not discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
       The absorption rules being the rules made in exercise of powers under Section 8 and the aforesaid requirement under sub-section (3) of Section 8, having been duly complied with, the rule is legislative in character and would have the force, as if the State Legislature have framed the rules. (Para 4)
       From the materials on record, it appears that the State government has been regulating the mode of appointment of part time lecturers and it is not correct that there has been no process of selection before such appointment of part time lecturers. Even though the selection had not been made by the Public Service Commission, but yet there was a process of selection and it further appears that unqualified people were not been appointed as part time lecturers. Part time lecturers having been formed a class by themselves and for some reason or the other, they having been deprived of the benefits of the earlier directions of this Court on account of inaction on the part of the State Government, the matter was re-examined by a Committee of experts as to how best, the services of these part time lecturers can be utilised and at the same time, there will be no dilution in the quality of teaching nor there can be any infraction in the minimum qualification, necessary for appointment as a lecturer. (Para 9)
       The concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment contra-distinguished from identical treatment. Equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though, they are the same. It of-course means denial of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like. The legislature as well as the executive government, while dealing with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must of necessity, have the power of making special laws, to attain any particular object and to achieve that object, it must have the power of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination. (Para 9)
       When the Absorption Rules are examined from the aforesaid stand point and when we consider the circumstances under which the said rules were made to solve a human problem and that the rules made were put to objection to the general public and even the Public Service Commission was consulted and finally was before the State Legislature to have their concurrence, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in striking down the rules on the ground that it is discriminatory. When this Court deprecates the regularisation and absorption, when it comes to the conclusion that such regularisation and absorption has become a common method of allowing back door entries and then regularising such entry, it is not that in every case, the Court would be justified in striking down the process of absorption or regularisation, more so when such absorption has been made as a legislative measure and that also as a one time measure, and at the same time insisting upon the essential qualifications to be duly complied with, by the persons intended to be absorbed on regular basis. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the tribunal as well as the High Court committed serious error in striking down the impugned absorption rules. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the tribunal and the High Court and allow these appeals. While we hold the absorption rules to be valid, we would further direct that the State Government must insist upon the candidates to pass the N.E.T. test, as required by the University Grants Commission within the period of three years and it is only on passing of such test, the absorbed employees will be entitled to the scale of pay, available for the regular qualified lecturers. Failure on their part to pass the N.E.T. test would debar them from being absorbed and regularised. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

2. These appeals by State of Karnataka as well as Karnataka Rajya Sarkari Prathama Darje Collejugala Arekalika Upanyasakara Sangha, are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, dismissing the writ petitions, filed against the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal entertained the public interest litigation petition and struck down Rule 2(b)(iii) of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of Persons working as Part Time Lecturers in the Karnataka Education Department of College Education) Special Rules, 1996 as well as the order dated 15.12.1997, essentially on the ground that the stop-gap lecturers are back door entrants and their regularisation by Rules is contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court in several cases and it affects the rights of regular entrants. Against the order of the tribunal, the High Court being moved under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the writ petitions having been dismissed, the present appeals have been preferred.

3. These cases involve not only a question of law but also a human problem inasmuch as these part time lecturers have served in different colleges for varying period for ten to twenty years and, if they are not regularised and treated as regular servants, then they will not be able to get themselves engaged anywhere else and at me same time, their experience in teaching will be a great loss to the student community. The part time lecturers had approached this court against the dismissal of their applications by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by way of filing special leave petitions, which were registered as SLP No. 4440-4454/1992 and 4321/1992. Those special leave petitions were disposed of by order dated 3.9.1992 and the Court came to the conclusion that on that date their exist 626 vacancies and the part time lecturers should be continued till regular recruitment to fill up the posts is made and such part time lecturers would be eligible to apply to the State Public Service Commission, whenever, the vacancies are notified and applications are called for. The Court also took note of the fact that the tribunal itself has given weight-age at 1% per year of service as part time lecturers, depending upon the number of years of service or 5%, whichever is less and also to enhance the maximum age limit upto 10 years in case of part time lecturers, possessing teaching experience and the weightage is also to be taken into consideration at the time of recruitment. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observations of this Court, the State of Karnataka did not take any further steps for filling up 626 vacancies, as a result of which, these part time lecturers could not make applications for regular recruitment. They again filed a writ petition under Article 32 in January, 1994, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 21/1994. In the said writ petition, they sought for regularisation of their services. While, the matter was pending in this Court, the State Government appointed a High Power Committee on 28th of February, 1995 to examine the problem and the impasse and submit a report. Taking into account the fact that the Sub-committee has been constituted to consider the grievances of the part time lecturers, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.9.1995. The said order reads as follows :

"It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that a sub-committee has been constituted by the State Government to consider the grievances of the part time lecturers and the cases of all such persons would be considered by the Sub-committee. The Minister In-charge also seems to have made a statement to that effect on the floor of the House. If that is so, it would be open to the petitioners to make a representation before the sub-committee along with all other persons similarly situated.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."

On consideration of the griev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 10

IMPORTANT POINTThe concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment contra-distinguished from identical treatment.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
The concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment contra-distinguished from identical treatment.