The classification based on educational qualifications is intelligible and bears a rational nexus to the purpose to be achieved.

ORDER :- These four petitions contain common questions of fact and law. They are disposed by this common judgement.

2. By the Government Notification dated July 23, 1966, published in the Government Gazette dated August 25, 1966, Series I, No. 21. Government made rules relating to the recruitment of non-Gazetted, non-Ministerial posts in the Department of Education under the Government of Goa, Damam and Diu. In the Schedule attached to the said Notification, the primary school teachers in this territory were divided into two classes. One class, mentioned in Item 32 i.e. Class II primary teachers, constituted by persons recruited from amongst the untrained teachers possessing the Matriculation or Primary School Certificate Examination, (PSCE) with at least 50%, marks in the aggregate, with a pay scale of Rs 110-185; and the other class, mentioned at item 33, i.e. Class I, constituted of trained teachers with Matriculation or with PSCE with 50% marks in the scale of Rs. 118-225. The petitioners Dabholkar and Isaac were untrained PSCE teachers in Class II (Item 32). The petitioners Talkar and Sharfuddin were trained teachers with PSCE in Class I. By the order dated 15-1-1971 the scale of trained Matriculate teachers was raised from Rs. 118-225 to Rs. 125-320, with effect from 27-5-70. Later on by the order dated 26-11-1971, the scale of pay of Matriculate trained teachers was again raised to Rs. 165-350. These two upgraded scales were not given to the petitioners However, trained non-Matriculate teachers were given those scales after 7 years of service and untrained non-Matriculate teachers were given those scales after 15 years of service. It is for these reasons that the petitioners come before me with these writ petitions.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the trained Matriculate teachers formed one class and that he two impugned orders divided them into two classes with different pay scales. It is argued that this classification is not intelligible and does not bear a reasonable nexus to the air that is sought to be achieved by the classification.

4. I must at the outset state that the petitioner Dabholkar and the petitioner Isaac were untrained teachers in Class II and therefore were not similarly situated to the Matriculate trained teachers, who were in Class I and were later on given higher scales of pay by the impugned orders. Their case therefore can be dismissed in limine.

5. The petitioners Talkar and Sharfuddin were trained teachers in Class I with scale of pay Rs. 118-225, but they did not possess the Matriculation certificate. The short question before me therefore is whether the Matriculate and non-Matriculate teachers who were clubbed together, could later on be separated into two classes for the purpose of pay. I have considered. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 by Chandrachud, J., as he then was, wherein, Mervyn Coutinho v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 52, Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889. State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 and S.M. Pandit v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 252, were considered. All these cases have also been considered by me in a recent decision given in Writ Petn. No. 33 of 1974, D- 23-9-1978 : (reported in AIR 1979 Goa 1). I have also considered two more recent case, namely, Dr. Raj Nandan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1975 (1) Serv LR 258 and Punjab State v. Lekh Raj Bowry, AIR 1968 Punj 337, which are on all fours with the present ones and which have followed the decision in AIR 1974 SC 1. I find no reason to change the view adopted by me, namely, that classification like the one in the present case, on the basis of educational qualifications, is both intelligible and bears a rational nexus to the purpose to be achieved.

6. In the circumstances, the four petitions are dismissed with costs.

Petitions dismissed.