1. Provincialisation of local board school teachers into state service — creation of separate state and provincialised cadres — disparity in promotion opportunities to selection grade. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 10 , 13 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 373
Supreme Court Of India
B.P.SINHA, C.J.I., K.SUBBA, RAO, K.N.WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Joginder Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 388 of 1962
Decided On : 11/16/1962
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. C. K Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Mr. L. D. Kaushal Addl. Advocate General, for the State of
Punjab and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Appellant; Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate (Mr. A, N. Goyal, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
Mr. C. K Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Mr. L. D. Kaushal Addl. Advocate General, for the State of
Punjab and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Appellant; Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate (Mr. A, N. Goyal, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
Identical pay and interchangeable posts do not automatically integrate two distinct classes of employees into one. If employees are recruited under different standards, the government may maintain separate cadres without violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1) and 309 - Equality of opportunity in matters of employment - Creation of separate cadres for employees performing same duties and receiving same pay - Whether a "diminishing cadre" system violates fundamental rights - Equality of pay and interchangeable posts do not necessarily imply a complete integration of services into a single class (Paras 16, 20, 23).
(B) Equal pay for equal work - The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has no direct application to Article 14, and the existence of different pay scales for different classes of officers performing similar work does not automatically violate the Constitution (Para 21).
(C) Administrative discretion - The government has the discretion in the constitution of services to man the administration, including the power to create different service conditions or recruit temporary staff under different rules, provided there is no discrimination within the same class (Para 21).
Facts of the case:
Teachers employed in local authority schools were taken over by the State and made State employees. They were granted the same pay scales and grades as teachers already in State service. Subsequently, rules were promulgated creating two distinct cadres: a State cadre and a provincialised cadre. The provincialised cadre was designed to be a diminishing one, where vacancies arising from retirements or deaths were filled by recruitment into the State cadre. This resulted in a progressive reduction of the provincialised cadre's strength and a corresponding decrease in the number of promotion opportunities to the selection grade for its members, while the State cadre expanded.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the act of taking over the teachers did not effect a complete integration of the two services. The two groups remained distinct classes because they had different initial qualifications and were recruited through different methods. The provision of identical pay and interchangeable posts did not automatically merge them into a single class for the purposes of seniority and promotion.
Issues: Whether the maintenance of two separate cadres for employees performing the same functions and receiving the same pay, where one cadre is gradually extinguished and vacancies are transferred to the other, constitutes discrimination and violates the right to equality of opportunity in employment under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the two groups of employees started as distinct classes with different recruitment standards and machinery, they could continue to be treated as separate cadres. The government possesses the administrative discretion to organize its services. There is no fundamental right for employees to have their cadre strength maintained undiminished. Therefore, the disparity in promotion opportunities arising from the diminishing nature of one cadre does not violate the Constitution, as long as there is no discrimination within each respective group.
Result: Appeal allowed and the order of the High Court striking down the rules is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Whether provincialisation effected complete integration of services — whether maintaining separate cadres with different promotion prospects violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. (Para 8 , 14 , 15 , 31 , 37 , 40 )
3. No complete integration occurred due to differing qualifications and recruitment methods — government possesses administrative discretion to organize services and create distinct cadres. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 )
4. Separate cadres with different conditions of service are permissible if based on intelligible differentia, such as recruitment methods and qualifications, without violating Articles 14 and 16(1). (Para 21 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order striking down rules relating to separate cadres and promotion formulas set aside. (Para 26 )
6. Does the doctrine of equal pay for equal work mandate identical conditions of service under Article 14?
No. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not automatically entitle employees to identical conditions of service or promotion prospects under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 21 )
7. Can the State maintain separate cadres for employees performing similar duties and receiving similar pay?
Yes, provided there is a valid basis for classification, such as differences in minimum educational qualifications and recruitment methods, ensuring no denial of equal opportunity within each group. (Para 20 , 23 )
8. Is the creation of a diminishing cadre that is intended to be extinguished over time unconstitutional?
No, provided the government is not legally bound to maintain the cadre strength; administrative decisions to phase out a specific cadre do not inherently violate fundamental rights. (Para 24 )
9. What constitutes complete integration of two services for the purpose of determining equality of opportunity?
Integration requires more than just equal pay and interchangeable posts; it necessitates a unified seniority list and common rules governing confirmation and promotion. (Para 16 )
Judgement
AYYANGAR, J., (Majority judgment: B. P. Sinha, C.J.I. and Wanchoo and Ayyanger, JJ.) This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dated October 3, 1961. That judgment was rendered in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent - Joginder Singh and by their order allowing the said petition in part, the learned Judges struck down R. 2 (d) and (e) and a part of R. 3 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules 1961,which for convenience we shall call the impugned rules, on the ground that those clauses were violative of the rights guaranteed by Art. 14 and Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution.
2. Certain facts have to be stated in order to appreciate both the manner in which the question was raised as well as the decision of the learned Judges now under appeal.
3. The respondent was before the 1st October 1957 working as a "Junior vernacular teacher" in a District Board High School in District Hoshiarpur. The points in controversy in this appeal turn on the precise changes which were effected in the status and conditions of service of teachers like the respondent employed in District Board and Municipal Board Schools by certain executive instructions issued by the Punjab Government in September, 1957 to take effect from October 1, 1957, by reason of which these teachers became State employees but before proceeding to the details of these changes, it would be convenient to set out the position and conditions of service of teachers employed in State schools which prevailed on that date.
4. At that date teachers in State employ were governed by rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution which had been promulgated on May 30, 1957. These rules were entitled "The Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955." We shall have occasion to refer to these Rules in detail after narrating the facts which have given rise to the present appeal. For the present it is sufficient to state that these rules prescribed inter alia the qualification for appointment, the recruiting authority, the conditions of service and seniority interse of members of the Service. The appendices to these rules specified the scales of salary to which teachers falling within the various grades which were specified would be entitled. The scales of pay of these State teachers were revised as a result of the acceptance by Government of the recommendation of a committee for pay revision and under an order of Government dared July 23, 1957, Junior teachers" in the State service the class of Officers with whom we are now concerned were split up into three grades: (a) Head Masters, (b) those in the middle scale, and (c) those in the lower scale. This Government order fixed the percentages of the teachers to be comprised in each group. It would be seen that so far as Head Masters were concerned, that could be no definite number because that depended upon the number of schools in which they could function but for teachers other than Head Masters, i.e., in what has been termed "the junior teacher grade", 15 per cent of the total strength of junior teachers were put in the "middle scale" on a salary scale of 120- 5-175 and this percentage included the head masters also though they were on a still higher scale of salary, while the rest of the 85 per cent were to be in the "lower scale" on a salary scale of 60-4-80/5-120. This Government order further directed: "Fifteen percent of teachers in this group should straight way be promoted to the middle class by selection based on seniority and merit while the rest should be given the lower scale." These were the rules governing the category called "Junior Teachers in the State Cadre" on 1-10-1957.
5. By an Executive instruction dated 27-9-1957, (to be effective from 1-10-1957), in the form of a communication from the Secretary to the Education Department of the State to the Public Instruction, a change was made in the terms
