1. All these three cases raise question about the entitlement of the petitioners to special scales of pay given to members of the tutorial staff of Technical Institutions on the recommendation of the All India Council of Technical Education. These higher scales intended for improving the calibre of teaching staff, were first paid out of the funds placed at the disposal of the various State Governments by the Central Government. The scheme was originally intended to last for a period of five years with the expectation that thereafter the State Government might continue them out of State funds. It would appear that in this State though the initial period of five years has lapsed the State Government is continuing the benefit of the higher scales for those to whom they were extended when the scheme was first introduced.

2. The petitioner in W.P.5320 / 69 was at the time the scheme was initiated working as Principal of the Government Polytechnic at Bellary having been promoted thereto a few months previously from a Class II Post to which he had been recruited as a Diploma holder.

3. The petitioner in W.P.714 of 1967 was at the relevant period a Lecturer having been promoted from the category of Demonstrators to which he had been recruited as a Diploma holder. The petitioner in W.P.788 of 1967, was a lecturer in Science who held a bachelor's degree in Science.

4. According to the terms and conditions for the application of these higher scales, a principal to secure the scale of Rs.800-1250 had to be person who had at least a second class degree in Engineering with not less than eight years' professional experience of which at least four years should be in the teaching field. For a Lecturer to get the higher scale of Rs.350-850, it is necessary that he should have at least a second class degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering with at least two years' professional experience. For a Lecturer in Science subjects it is necessary that he should possess a Master's degree in the first division in Science with at least two years' teaching or research experience.

5. These petitioners have not been given the benefit of the higher scales because they do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed therefor. The petitioner in W.P. No.5320/69, as already stated, is only a Diploma holder. Likewise the petitioner in W.P.714 of 1967. The petitioner in W.P.788 of 1967 has only a Bachelor's degree and not a Master's degree in Science.

6. On the language of the prescription there can be no doubt, therefore, that none of the petitioners was entitled to the benefit of the higher scales.

7. The petitioners however, contend that to extend the benefit of the scale to other persons in their respective categories but deny the same to them on the ground of educational qualifications alone brings about a discrimination violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and that is the only point for investigation common to all these three cases.

8. To a great extent, any discussion on first principles is rendered unnecessary by the declaration of the law made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. Narasing Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349. That was a case in which different scales of pay were prescribed by the State Government of Mysore for tracers who had passed the S.S.L.C. Examination and those who had not passed the said examination. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the prescription of different scales to tracers on the ground of possession or non - possession of the educational qualification of having passed the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination. They point out that the provisions of Art.14 or Art.16 of the Constitution do not exclude the laying down of selective tests nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the posts in question and conclude by stating that higher educational qualifications are relevant considerations for fixing a higher pay scale.

9. The statement of the principle, there