Judgement

OZA, J. :- This appeal arises out of Special Leave granted by this Court against the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2213 of 1970 decided on 6-3-1973.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a Workshop Mechanic in B.D.T. College of Engineering, Devangere in the year 1953. He was promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor by order dated 7-8-1959 in the pay scale of Rs. 100-200. In 1961 the pay scales were revised with effect from 1-1-1961. Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs. 150-320 and Certificate holders Rs. 150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respondent who was a Certificate holder and not a Diploma holder was accordingly given the pay scale of Rs. 150-250.

3. By a notification dated 5-5-1964 the Government of Mysore made rules known as Mysore Education Department (Technical Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules and it is alleged that at about the same time the Government of India after accepting recommendations of the All India Council for Technical Education suggested revised pay scales of pay of Workshop Instructors and in these recommendations also the Workshop Instructors with second class Diploma or equivalent qualifications with 10 years experience were given the pay scales of Rs. 260-500 and it is alleged that as the respondent was not entitled to this pay scale he was not given. It is alleged that in 1969 the respondent made a representation to the State Government and when he did not succeed in spite of repeated representations he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore alleging that by not giving the pay scale to the respondent the Government of Karnataka had discriminated.

4. The High Court by its judgment dated 6-3-1973 allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed that the petitioner be placed in the proper pay scale and should not be placed in the pay scale lower than the Diploma holders. It is against this judgment that the State of Karnataka after obtaining leave from this Court preferred this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that so far as the present respondent is concerned the State Government is not very keen not to give the advantage to him but it was contended that the matter is of general importance as according to the learned counsel different pay scales on the basis of difference in educational qualifications could be justified and will amount to reasonable classification and therefore will not be hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. He by reference to certain observations in some of the judgments of this Court contended that the view taken by the High Court is not correct.

5. It is very significant that Honble the High Court did not indulge in the examination of the general question. It restricted this consideration to the facts of the present case as it stood. It is observed in the judgment that for recruitment to the post of Workshop Instructor no distinction is made between the holders of a Certificate and holders of a Diploma. It is also observed in the judgment that at the time when this respondent was recruited there was no difference in the pay scales prescribed for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate and when at the time of recruitment they were recruited on the basis that diploma holder and certificate holder both were entitled to be appointed to the same post in the same pay scale. The High Court took the view that by subsequent revision of pay scale different pay scales could not be enforced for the same post merely on the basis of a holder of a certificate or a diploma as it was held that as an Instructor the person will perform the same duties and will do the same work in spite of the fact that he may be a certificate holder or a diploma holder.

6. It is not disputed before us that so far as the facts stated in the judgment of the High Court is concerned are not disputed. It is admitted that at the time when this