IMPORTANT POINTS
What Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classification if otherwise such classification is legal, valid and reasonable.
Where different pay scales were fixed for trained lecturers on one hand and untrained lecturers on other hand it could not be held illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing Article14 of Constitution.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Notification by state government fixing two different pay scales for trained lectures and untrained lectures – Whether violative of Article 14 - Held there was a clear distinction between a trained teacher (lecturer) and an untrained teacher (lecturer) - Such a distinction was legal, valid, rational and reasonable - Trained lecturers and untrained lecturers, hence could neither be said to be similarly circumstanced nor they formed one and same class - Classification held reasonable and based on intelligible differentia which distinguished one class (trained) included therein from other class (untrained) which was left out - Such classification or differentia had a rational nexus or reasonable relation to object intended to be achieved, viz., imparting education to students - It, could not be successfully contended that different pay scales could not be fixed for trained lecturers on one hand and untrained lecturers on other hand - Prescribing different pay scales, under circumstances, could not be held illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing Article14 of Constitution. (Paras 33,41,42,43,44)
       Constitution of India, 1950- Article 14–Scope and ambit of - Article 14 of Constitution guarantees equality before law and confers equal protection of laws - It prohibits State from denying persons or class of persons equal treatment; provided they are equals and are similarly situated - It, however, does not forbid classification - What Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classification if otherwise such classification is legal, valid and reasonable. (Para 11)
       1952 SC 284, (2006) 8 SCC 399, (2007) 1 SCC 732, (1968) 1 SCC 407, (1974) 1 SCC 19, (2006) 1 SCC 82, relied upon.
       Doctrine of equal pay for equal work – Even though it is true that equal pay for equal work’ is a doctrine well established in service jurisprudence and is also a concomitant of Article 14 of Constitution – However, equal pay would depend upon not only on nature or volume of work but also on quality of work as regards reliability and responsibility as well and different pay scales may be prescribed on basis of such reliability and responsibility.(Para 24)
        (2000)3 SCC 250 relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       Advertisement was issued by appellant State herein in the instant case inviting applications for appointment of +2 lectures in secondary schools in government schools as sell as nationalized schools. No requirement was advertised of having training for application to said post. However two different pay scales were fixed for trained lectures and untrained lectures by State Government. Writ petition by respondent association there against was dismissed by single judge. On Appeal division bench directed State authorities to grant uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lectures.
       Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that there was a clear distinction between a trained teacher (lecturer) and an untrained teacher (lecturer) and such a distinction was legal, valid, rational and reasonable. Trained lecturers and untrained lecturers, hence could neither be said to be similarly circumstanced nor they form one and same class. Classification held reasonable and based on intelligible differentia which distinguished one class (trained) included therein from other class (untrained) which was left out - Such classification or differentia has a rational nexus or reasonable relation to object intended to be achieved, viz., imparting education to students. It, could not be successfully contended that different pay scales could not be fixed for trained lecturers on one hand and untrained lecturers on other hand. Prescribing different pay scales, under circumstances, could not be held illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing Article14 of the Constitution.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

C.K. THAKKER, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated March 22, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 2004. By the said order, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Association of Untrained Lecturers and set aside the order dated January 28, 2004 passed by a single Judge of that Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7224 of 1999.

3.To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be noted:

4.Advertisement No.1 of 1987 was issued by the appellants, inviting applications for appointment of +2 Lecturers in Secondary Schools in the pay scales of Rs.940-1660 in Government Schools as well as in Nationalized Schools. The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement for the post was Post-Graduate Degree in II Class. There was no requirement of having training for appointment to the said post. In 1989, Members of the Respondent-Association who had Post-Graduate Degree in II Class but who were untrained, were selected and appointed as Lecturers in Nationalized Schools in the pay scales of Rs.940-1660. After Vth Pay Commission, pay scales of Rs.940-1660 were revised to Rs.1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1996. It appears that initially, there was difference in pay scales of +2 Lecturers serving in Government Schools and serving in Nationalized Schools other than Government Schools. After a decision of the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2445 of 1994, all +2 Lecturers were granted uniform pay scales irrespective of their posting. The controversy raised in the present matter relates to difference of pay scales between lecturers who are trained and lecturers who are untrained. A Fitment Committee was appointed by the Government to consider the pay scales of trained and untrained lecturers. The Fitment Committee considered the question and recommended different pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Fitment Committee and fixed pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 for untrained lecturers and Rs.6500-10500 for trained lecturers. Government Resolution was passed on February 8, 1999 and a notification was issued on June 10, 1999.

5.There was resentment amongst the employees against fixation of two different pay scales of +2 Lecturers on the basis of training. A writ petition was, therefore, filed by the Association challenging classification made on the basis of training. A Fitment Appellate Committee was, therefore, constituted by the State Government presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court by an order dated January 15, 2000 to go into the anomalies in pay scales of trained lecturers and untrained lecturers. The Fitment Appellate Committee submitted its report, recommending payment of uniform pay scales to trained as well as untrained lecturers observing that different pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The State Government, however, maintained that there is difference between trained lecturers and untrained lecturers and difference in pay scales would not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

6.The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition upheld the contention of the State Government and dismissed the petition filed by the Association holding that in making distinction between trained lecturers and untrained lecturers and in fixing different pay scales, State Government had not violated any provision of the Constitution and the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Division Bench, however, as observed earlier, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the single Judge and directed the State Authorities to grant uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers. The order passed by the Division Bench is challenged by the State Authorities in the present Appeal by Special Leave.

7.On January 6, 2005, notic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 738

Cases Referred (11)