Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 1016
2002(8) Supreme 412
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju and B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
State of Karnataka & Ors. -Appellants
versus
N. Parameshwarappa & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8334-8353 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8355-8357 and 8358-8374 of 2001
Decided on 9-10-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mahendra R. Anand, Advocate.
For the Respondents : V.R. Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ Petition before Karnataka High Court in educational matter-Brief facts: three types of colleges in the State under 10+2+3 pattern of education i.e., colleges exclusively for pre-university courses, those for degree courses only and those for both types of courses called First Grade or Composite Colleges-By order dated 30-3-1990 benefits of revised 1986 University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales extended to the teachers in the composite colleges-By circular dated 14-01-1992 these benefits denied to teachers teaching pre-university courses in those colleges-Petition before Karnataka High Court for issuance of writ of mandamus and for quashing of the said circular-Petition allowed and consequential directions issued for implementation of order dated 30-3-1990 w.e.f. 1-1-1986-On Appeal, the Division Bench granted benefits only w.e.f. 1-4-1990 but agreed that the differential treatment now sought to be made not justified-Appeal before Supreme Court by both the parties-Respondent-teachers for implementation w.e.f. 1-1-1986.
(ii) Contention by the appellants-Government Order dated 30-3-1990 contained specific stipulations confining the benefits to teachers in the Degree colleges only and circular dated 14-1-1992 merely clarificatory in nature-By the respondents: the caption coverage in the Government Order dated 30-3-1990 the Scheme will have no application only to those who specifically exercised an option to remain out of it, therefore no other exception provided therein-Question involved whether the differentiation sought to be made by the authorities for denying the benefit to the respondents was justified? (No)-Appeals dismissed.
Held : In our view, the approach, the method of dealing and the manner of differentiation sought to be made by the authorities of the Government for denying the benefit of the revised scales of pay to the respondent category of teachers alone does not seem to rest on any firm or definite legal stand. The benefit of coverage is found extended to all the Teachers in First Grade Degree Colleges, also called as Composite Colleges and merely because such colleges have been permitted to have pre-university courses also, the teachers should not be discriminated merely on the ground as to which teacher is assigned, at a particular point of time to teach which class of students, though individual entitlement of each of the teachers may depend upon the fulfilment of other requirements stipulated therefor. This is obvious, in our view, from the omission of the State to bring forth positively any definite factual aspect for such differential treatment not only before the High Court but also in this Court which necessitated this Court on 16-1-2001, 24-4-2001 and 26.7.2001 to issue directions calling for disclosure of the specific stand and statement of facts to have an effective adjudication of the issue. We have been taken through the three affidavits filed in this Court by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, and as observed in the order of this Court on 24-4-2001 they seem to be more of argumentative nature, than the presentation of a specific and relevant fact or criteria based upon any concrete basis of fact and the affidavit filed thereafter also, except being in the nature of a mere assertion does not contain that relevant detail for this Court to take a different view of facts than the one consistently arrived at by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court. In that view of the matter and taking into account also to some extent the other factor such as the injustice that may result in denying the benefits of the order to merely about 80 or so of the teachers in the Composite Colleges in question imparting education for Degree and PUC Courses, we do not consider it appropriate to disturb the findings on this aspect as to the coverage of such teachers in Composite Colleges, for purposes of revised UGC scales of pay to them. (Para 7)
(iii) Other Issues-Whether relief should be confined to the period w.e.f. 1-4-1990 only? (Yes)-Whether confining the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the Court justified? (No).
Held : Relief in this regard has been so confined for more than one relevant and justifying reason and one such was the absence of the Union of India and the University Grants Commission before the Court as party to the proceedings. Even that apart some of the facts of the submission made by Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-teachers, which found favour of our acceptance and dissuaded us from interfering with the judgment under challenge in these appeals, if persuaded to their logical extent only fortifies the said conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court. One such contention was that it was permissible for the Government, independently of the Central Government assistance also to extend the benefits to the Teachers beyond that which has been provided for by the Government of India. Such responsibility, even under the Government order dated 30-3-90 has been undertaken from 1-4-1990, onwards by the State Government to implement the scheme in entirety. Therefore, for such added reasons too we are in entire agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench that the relief accorded should be confined to the period w.e.f. 1-4-1990 only. At the same time we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the Court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, everyone of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the Court. (Para 8)
For all the reasons stated above the appeals filed both by the State as well as by the private respondent-teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration to extend the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the Court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. (Para 9)
ORDER
C.A. Nos. 8334-8353/2001, 8355-8357 and 8358-8374/2001
Of the above batch of appeals before us, C.A. Nos. 8334-8353 of 2001 have been filed by the State of Karnataka and respondent teachers have also filed independently separate C.A. Nos. 8355-57/2001 and 8358-8374 of 2001, aggrieved against the respective portions of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 30-05-1998 in Writ Appeal Nos. 528-546 of 1996 etc., Writ Petitions had been filed before the High Court of Karnataka seeking for the quashing of the Circular dated 14-1-1992 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Mysore and for a consequential direction in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the State to implement the GO No. ED 88 UNI 88 Bangalore dated 30-3-1990.
2. The real controversy centres around a narrow compass. In the State of Karnataka, having regard to the pattern of education in vague with the implementation of system of education 10+2+3, three types of colleges came into function, firstly, colleges in which exclusively pre-university courses alone were taught, secondly, colleges in which exclusively degree courses alone were taught and composite colleges, as it is called wherein both the pre-university as well as degree courses also were taught, also called as First Grade Colleges. When the government passed the orders dated 30-3-1990 extending the benefits of revised 1986 University Grants Commission (for short the UGC) Pay scales to the teachers in the First Grade (Degree) Colleges both Government Colleges and those Aided by Government as per Grant-in-Aid Code under the control of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, various guide-lines and stipulations were issued therein for the purpose of extending the scales of pay in terms of the 4th Plan Pay Scales of UGC. The said Order itself seems to have been passed as an aftermath of the representations made by the college teachers and the recommendations of the Committee set up therefor, after considering such recommendations as well as the orders of the Government of India, agreeing to extend its assistance for implementing the scheme of revision of pay scales. This order was said to have been made in supersession of the earlier Government Order dated 25-3-1989 and for sanctioning revised 1986 UGC scales to the teachers in the First Grade Degree Colleges of the class or category notified above w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The UGC scheme was stated to be a composite scheme, embracing within its fold not only the university teachers but also the teaching staff of the colleges. Under the caption coverage the order stated as follows:
"(1) COVERAGE: The scheme applies to teachers in all the First Grade (Degree) Colleges both Government Aided and Government Colleges under the Directorate of Collegiate Education. This scheme shall, however, not apply to those who specifically exercise an option in writing to remain out of it. All teachers appointed after the date from which the scheme has been given effect to will be governed by the provisions of the scheme."
3. In the course of implementation of the said orders certain difficulties seems to have surfaced and as noticed earlier the Regional Deputy Director, (Collegiate Education Department, Mysore) in his circular dated 14-1-1992 while inviting the proforma and proposals for implementing the orders of the Government indicated that no proposals need be sent in respect of Lecturers teaching pre-university classes only and this gave rise to the litigation culminating in the appeals now before us.
4. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court who heard the batch of Writ Petitions by the judgment dated 25th September, 1995 has countenanced the claim of the writ petitioners before the High Court and issued consequential directions for the implementation of the orders to all the lecturers attached to the composite colleges by granting the revised UGC scales of pay w.e.f. 1-1-1986 and settle their cla
