State of Mysore Vs. B. Basavalingappa
[1986] INSC 271 (17 December 1986)
OZA, G.L. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION: 1987 AIR 411 1987 SCR (1) 579 1986
SCC Supl. 661 JT 1986 1090 1986 SCALE (2)1095
ACT:
Civil Service.
Workshop Mechanic and Workshop
Instructor--Basis of recruitment-Diploma holder.and certificate holder both
eligible--Placed in same pay scale--Revision of pay scales--Different pay
scales to Diploma homers and Certificate homers given-Whether permissible.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was appointed as a Workshop
Mechanic. He was promoted to the post of Workshop InstrUctor on 7.8.1959 in the
pay scale of Rs.100-120. The pay scales were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1961. Diploma
holders were given the pay scale of Rs. 150-320, and Certificate holders Rs.
150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respondent, a Certificate
holder, was given the pay scale of Rs. 150-250. The pay scales were again
revised in 1964 and Workshop Instructors with second class Diploma or
equivalent qualifications with 10 years experience were given the pay scale of
Rs.260-500, but the respondent did not get this scale in spite of repeated
representations made to the State Government.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition alleging
discrimination. The High Court allowed the petition holding: (1) that for
recruitment to the post of Workshop Instructor no distinction is made between
the holders of a Certificate and holders of a Diploma, (2) that at the time
when the respondent was recruited there was no difference in the pay scales
prescribed for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate, and the basis for
recruitment was that Diploma holder and Certificate holder both were entitled
to be appointed to the same post in the same pay scale, and (3) that by subsequent
revision of pay scale different pay scales could not be enforced for the same
post merely on the basis of a holder of a Certificate or a Diploma because as
an Instructor the person will perform the same duties and will do the same work
in spite of the fact that he may be a Certificate holder or a Diploma holder,
and directed that the respondent be placed in the pay scale not lower than that
of the Diploma holders.
580 In appeal to this Court on behalf of the
Appellant-State it was contended: (1) that the different pay scales on the
basis of difference in educational qualifications could he justified and will
mount to reasonable classification and will not he hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution, (2) that a Diploma is a higher qualification than a Certificate
and (3) that the view taken by the High Court is not correct.
Dismissing the Appeal,
HELD: 1. Neither there is any curriculum on
record nor any other material to draw the inference that Diploma is a higher
qualification than a Certificate. At the time when respondent was recruited
there was only one cadre and a Diploma holder or a Certificate holder both were
entitled to he recruited as an Instructor on the same pay scale. This
circumstance indicates that the two were considered to he alike. [582E-F]
2. There is no material on record to indicate
that when the pay scales were revised and subsequently they were further
revised it was done on the basis of some material indicating that the Diploma
became a better qualification than the Certificate holder. It was because of
this the High Court did not go into the general question as to whether on the
basis of educational qualifications different pay scales can or could not be
prescribed and in the absence of any material it will not he possible for this
Court to go into that question. [582F-H]
3. On the facts of the present case it could.
not he said that the High Court committed any error. [583A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 110
of 1974.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3. 1973
of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2213 of 1970.
R.B. Datar, Swaraj Kaushal, K.M. Muzamnil and
N. Nettar for the Appellant.
S.S. Khanduja and Y.P. Dhingra for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
OZA, J. This appeal arises out of Special Leave granted by this 581 Court
against the Judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2213 of 1970
decided on 6.3.1973.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this
appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a Workshop Mechanic in B.D.T.
College of Engineering, Devangere in the year 1953.
He was promoted to the post of Workshop
Instructor by order dated 7.8.1959 in the pay scale of Rs. 100-200. In 1961 the
pay scales were revised with effect from 1.1. 1961. Diploma holders were given
the pay scale of Rs. 150-320 and Certificate holders Rs. 150-250 in the cadre
of Workshop Instructor. The respondent who was a Certificate holder and not a
Diploma holder was accordingly given the pay scale of Rs. 150-250.
By a notification dated 5.5.1964 the
Government of Mysore made rules known as Mysore Education Department (Technical
Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules and it is alleged that at about the
same time the Government of India after accepting recommendations of the All
India Council for Technical Education suggested revised pay scales of pay of
Workshop Instructors and in these recommendations also the Workshop Instructors
with second class Diploma or equivalent qualifications with 10 years experience
were given the pay scales of Rs.260-500 and it is alleged that as the
respondent was not entitled to this pay scale he was not given. It is alleged
that in 1969 the respondent made a representation to the State Government and
when he did not succeed in spite of repeated representations he filed a Writ
Petition in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore alleging that by not giving
the pay scale to the respondent the Government of Karnataka had discriminated.
The High Court by its judgment dated 6.3.
1973 allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent and directed that the
petitioner to be placed in the proper pay scale and should not be placed in the
pay scale lower than the Diploma holders. It is against this judgment that the
State of Karnataka after obtaining leave from this Court preferred this appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that so far as the present
respondent is concerned the State Government is not very keen not to give the
advantage to him but it was contended that the matter is of general importance
as according to the learned counsel different pay scales on the basis of
difference in educational qualifications could be justified and will amount to
reasonable classification and therefore and will not be hit by Article 14 of
the Constitution. He by reference to certain observations in some of the
judgments of this Court contended that the view taken by the High Court is not
correct.
582 It is very significant that Hon'ble the
High Court did not indulge in the examination of the general question. It
restricted its consideration to the facts of the present case as it stood. It
is observed in the judgment that for recruitment to the post of Workshop
Instructor no distinction is made between the holders of a Certificate and holders
of a Diploma. It is also observed in the judgment that at the time when this
respondent was recruited there was no difference in the pay scales prescribed
for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate and when at the time of
recruitment they were recruited on the basis that diploma holder and
certificate holder both were entitled to be appointed to the same post in the
same pay scale. The High Court took in view that by subsequent revision of pay
scale different pay scales could not be enforced for the same post merely on
the basis of a holder of a certificate or a diploma as it was held that as an
Instructor 'the person will perform the same duties and will do the same work
in spite of the fact that he may be a certificate holder or a diploma holder.
It is not disputed before us that so far as
the facts stated in the judgment of the High Court are concerned they are not
disputed. It is admitted that at the time when this respondent was recruited
there was only one cadre and that was of Instructor and only one pay scale and
the certificate holder or a diploma holder both were entitled to be recruited
on that post. No material is in the record on the basis 'of which it could be
contended that there was any substantial difference at that time between the
two qualifications although they were described differently. It was argued that
a diploma is a higher qualification than a certificate. But neither there is
any curriculum on record nor any other material to draw that inference. On the
contrary this circumstance that at the time when respondent was recruited a
diploma holder or a certificate holder both were entitled to be recruited as an
Instructor on the same pay scale and this indicates that in those days the two
were considered to be alike.
There is also no material to indicate that
when the pay scales were revised and subsequently when they were further
revised it was done on the basis of some material indicating that the diploma
became a better qualification than the certificate. In fact we have no further
material to examine the question in the broader aspect. It appears that it was
because of this that the learned Judges of the High Court accordingly disposed
of the matter on the facts of this case alone and therefore did not go into the
general question as to whether on the basis of educational qualifications different
pay scales can or cannot be prescribed and in absence of any material it will
not be possible for us 583 to go into that question. Apart from it that
question is not material for decision of the present appeal, it is not
necessary for us to examine the matter which will merely be an academic
exercise. On the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the High
Court committed any error in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. The respondent shall
be entitled to cost of the appeal.
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
Back
