PARAMESHWARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of Petitions raises one common point which is one both of interest as also of considerable legal significance. I refer to the latter aspect of the matter for the reason that the petitioners are members of the teaching profession and there are several similarly situated persons to whom this Judgment will apply even though they may not have moved this Court through specific Petitions. Briefly stated, the question that is posed for decision is as to whether the U.G.C. scales of salary that were made applicable with effect from 1.1.86 would apply to Lecturers who are attached to the Pre University Course (hereinafter referred to as the "P.U.C."). The objection on the part of the Government is a two fold one. In the first instance, it is contended that the P.U.C. has nothing to do with the University in so far as even the examination is conducted by a separate Board and that therefore, the petitioners do not come within the categorisation of University teachers. The second contention that is raised is that the P.U.C. is run by what is known as the Junior College and that this Institution is distinguishable from the regular College which conducts the Degree Courses. The Government has contended therefore that viewed at from either angle, the petitioners cannot be categorised as University Teachers and if this is the position, that the U.G.C. scales will not and cannot apply to them. The petitioners who are aggrieved by this decision have moved this Court through the present set of Petitions and it is their contention that they are entitled to a direction that the U.G.C. scales be made applicable to them from the effective date i.e., 1.1.1986.

(2.) The petitioners' learned Advocate has seriously attacked the classification as a result of which the petitioner is disqualified from receiving the U.G.C. scales principally because she contends that it is arbitrary and discriminatory. For this purpose, she has relied heavily on the factual position whereunder she contends that all these petitioners are on the teaching staff of what is known as I Grade Colleges or in other words Composite Colleges. Such institutions conduct classes from the P.U.C. upto the Degree level. Petitioners' learned Advocate therefore submits that the distinction sought to be made between the P.U.C. Lecturers and the rest of the Lecturers is an artificial distinction and not a real one in so far as the Institution is one and the same. At this stage, the learned Government. Advocate has seriously assailed the factual classification by pointing out that it is not a question as to whether the College is run from the same set of buildings or class rooms but the fact is that the P.U.C. Board is different from the University and he submits that if a careful examination is done it will be evident that the P.U.C. classes are conducted in a segregated area which is set aside and known as the Junior Colleges. He likens the situation to some of the educational institutions which may be running Schools and Colleges together, wherein within one campus different classes are conducted right from the 1st standard upto the Degree level and where different categories of persons deal with each set of students. It is his contention therefore that even if in these Composite Colleges the Institution is one and the same or the classes are conducted within the same campus that a distinction is still permissible between the Junior College and the Regular College. As regards the aspect of classification, he submits that it can only be attacked if it is arbitrary and unreasonable and he submits that there is absolutely nothing arbitrary in the matter of drawing a barrier between the P.U.C. Lecturers and those taking the Degree classes because they deal with two different sets of students. The courses are dissimilar and admittedly, the P.U.C. classes as far as academic standards and curriculum is concerned, are a step lower than the Degree classes.

(3.) In this context, the petitioners, learned Advocate has placed reliance on a Decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR1958 SC 538 , (1959 )61 BOMLR192 , [1959 ]1 SCR279 , Rama Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar and has laid emphasis on the 5th test set out by the Court at page 549. The Supreme Court had occasion to refer to an earlier Decision of the Court reported in AIR1952 SC 235 , 1952 CriLJ1167 , [1952 ]1 SCR710 , K.R. Rawath v. State of Sourashtra wherein the Court was dealing with a situation involving the exercise of discretion by the Government while implementing a particular provision. Petitioners' learned Advocate demonstrates that in the present instance the Notification issued by the Government of India is clear and unambiguous in so far as it specifies that it shall apply to "all teachers". She therefore submits that the error has occurred in the application and that the respondents were wrong in creating a sub-classification among the Lecturers and holding that those of them who belong to the Junior College and were attached to the Pre University Classes would not qualify for the U.G.C. scales. The learned Advocate has pointed out two very significant aspects of the matter to the Court, the first of them being that for purposes of qualifying to teach the P.U.C. class, the academic proficiency that is expected from the teachers is virtually on par with their counterparts who teach the Degree classes. Secondly, she has illustrated that in the majority of cases if not all of them, the same set of Lecturers is required to teach both the P.U.C. and the Degree Classes and that therefore, the distinction sought to be made by the respondents, that they are two separate categories is unreal and erroneous. She I submits that the distinction is liable to be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness in so far as it fails to pass the test of reasonableness, and that it is not based on any rational principles. The sequetor is that since the action is arbitrary, it discriminates against an entire class of persons such as the petitioners who are singled out for being deprived of the benefit of the U.G.C. scales without there being any valid justification therefor.