Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- On October 1, 1957 when the then State of Punjab brought about provincialisation of all Schools till then run by the Local Bodies there were 231 High Schools and 762 Middle Schools conducted by the said Local Bodies. There were at that time 321 headmasters/headmistresses getting a scale of pay of Rupees 250-Rupees 350, 294 masters/.mistresses getting a scale of pay of Rupees 250-Rupees 300 and 1,792 masters/mistresses getting a lower scale of Rupee 100-Rupees 250. On October 1, 1957, all the Schools together with their existing staff were taken over by the State Government. As in the case of the primary junior teachers, it was provided that all these masters/mistresses from the provincialised Schools would be given the same scale of pay and allowances as were given to their counterparts serving in the Government Schools.

2. According to the petitioners the minimum qualifications required for the appointment of masters were the same for both the State schools and those conducted by the Local Bodies. That fact, coupled with the fact that they were to be given the same scale of pay, and allowances, meant that there was no difference between the provincialised masters and those appointed subsequent to the provincialisation between October 1, 1957 and February 13, 1961 when the 1961-Rules for the provincialised masters and teachers were promulgated, except that those who were appointed after the date of provincialisation were junior to them in service. According to the petitioners, the two categories of masters the provincialised and the Government Schools masters, therefore, formed one class since both the categories were given the same scales of pay, both were Government employees and both carried out the same duties and performed the same functions in Schools which on provincialisation became Government Schools.

3. The grievance of the petitioners was that Rules of 1961 divided masters, who for all practical purposes formed one class, into two arbitrary cadres, the State cadre and the provincialised cadre, and through their various provisions meted out differential treatment to those appointed after October 1, 1957 by their being treated as belonging to the State cadre, although the petitioners and several others like them were senior in experience than those recruited after the said date. The 1961-Rules thus created discrimination by divinding the masters into two categories although there was no rational basis for such a classification.

4. As an by way of illustration of such alleged discrimination the petitioners stated that petitioner Ram Lal, a trained graduate (B. Sc., B. T.) was appointed in the District Board s High School, Rukhi District Rohtak in 1955. He was confirmed in that post on September 1, 1957, Respondent Rajeshwar Parshad was appointed in the same High School after provincialisation on May 12, 1958. Though the petitioner Ram Lal was thus senior to him in experience and possessed the same qualifications Rajeshwar had been called for promotion to the selection grade, while the petitioner was ignored. Likewise, petitioner Ram Niwas, also a trained Master (B. A., B.T.), was appointed on April 28, 1956 in the erstwhile District Board High School, Asandah, District Rohtak and was confirmed as such on October 1, 1957. Respondent Dilawar Singh was appointed in the same School on April 16, 1958. Though, therefore, junior to him in service, Dilawar Singh had been called for promotion to the selection grade only because under the 1961-Rules he had been placed on his appointment in the State cadre. In 1965, Petitioner Ram Niwas was transferred to the Government High School at Rajlugarh, District Rohtak, where in 1968 he officiated as the headmaster for about six months. Yet two of the appointees recruited after October 1, 1957, by reason of their being placed in the State cadre, would be promoted to the selection grade, while the petitioner, though senior to them, will not get such a chance. Being thus