JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. These two appeals involving identical question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The factual matrix, is, however, being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 1999.

3. On or about 6.8.1981, the respondent was appointed as Sewing Teacher on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 480-880/- by the District Education Officer, Ferozepur. She claimed same scale of pay payable to Classical and Vernacular Teachers. The said representation of the respondent was, however, rejected.

4. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, a writ petition was filed by her before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment was allowed relying on or on the basis of the earlier decisions of the said court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (1988 (4) SLR 199) and Prabjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1994 (3) SCT 262).

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar it failed to take into consideration that the Education Department of the Government of Punjab had made rules in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978, in terms whereof the Sewing Teachers and Master (s) or Mistress (es) were placed in different categories. In terms of the said rules, the learned counsel would urge, whereas a master or mistress must possess a degree of a recognised university with B.Ed.; the requisite educational qualification of a Tailoring Mistress is only matric or middle or equivalent with three years Teachers Training Diploma from the Industries Department of State or Industrial Training.

6. It was urged that the method of recruitment in the category of Master or Mistress and Tailoring Mistress is also different. It was pointed out that on or about 17.2.1989 the scales of pay of the teaching staff of the Education Department had been revised, in terms whereof different scales of pay had been granted to different categories of teachers and in that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that various other similarly situated teachers had been granted scales of pay applicable to Classical and Vernacular Teachers. It was further pointed out that the respondent is a handicapped person.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that although the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise in passing the impugned judgment.

9. In Amarjit Kaur (supra), the writ petitioners therein had been granted a revised scale of pay and the same was wrongly withdrawn on the ground that she was confirmed with effect from 22.5.1974 by mistake. The High Court rejected the said contention of the respondent but proceeded further to hold that the Education Department had classified and recognized the Tailing Mistress and Classical and Vernacular Teachers in the same category and, thus, when the scale of pay of the Classical and Vernacular Teachers had been revised, there was no reason as to why the pay scale of the Tailoring Mistress should not be accordingly revised.

10. In Prabjot Kaur (supra), the High Court followed Amarjit Kaur (supra) although the fact of the matter was quite different.

11. The High Court, in the above referred decisions, had no occasion to consider the effect of the statutory rules or the notification revising scales of pay of different categories of the teachers.

12. In a case of this nature, even the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would not apply when it has not been established that duties and functions of two categories of employees are at par. Furthermore, a classification based on different educational qualifications is permissible. Yet again it may not matter as to whether the judgmen