JOSHI TUSHAR TANSUKHBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main theme and the hub of the entire petition is referable to judicial scrutiny, determination and adjudication of an alleged disparity in the pay-scales of two classes of teaching and non-teaching persons employed in Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools aided by the Government in the State of Gujarat challenging the scheme evolved and designed on the basis of grant-in-aid policy for Private Schools and emanated from the Government Resolution dated 02-07-1999. By virtue of the impugned scheme under the Resolution dated 02-07-1999 of the State Government, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "original-petitioners") have been in employment in various Private Aided Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools as Shikshan Sahayaks (Education Assistants), Vahivati Sahayaks (Administrative Assistants) and Sathi Sahayaks (Co-assistants) and the entire linchpin of the petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenged against scheme only for parity in pay-scales with other employees, who, according to them, are similarly situated and, therefore, they have pressed into service the doctrine of `Equal Pay for Equal Work'.

(2.) It is their contention that they have been recruited after following due procedure prescribed under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, ("Act", for short) as Shikshan Sahayaks, Vahivati Sahayaks and Sathi Sahayaks, on the premise that similarly situated employees, like "Assistant Teachers" and "Administrative Employees", they are also entitled to parity of pay-scale instead of fixed contractual amount paid to them. In short, the contention has been that considering the educational qualification, the nature of work, the process of recruitment, the provisions of law and status, they are eligible and entitled to equal pay-scale, as that of other teachers and employees employed by following the same procedure under the provisions of Act and Rules made thereunder, and recruited on regular basis, and since the impugned Government Resolution, under which they are recruited is a departure from regular employment process and policy under the Act and the Rules, the denial of equal wages and status is derogative, defective, discriminatory, illegal, invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondent-Authority has controverted the contentions raised in the petition. It has, `inter-alia', contended that the original petitioners have joined the service after accepting the terms and conditions of the impugned Government Resolution and they are governed by the service conditions of the impugned Government Resolution. It is denied that the original-petitioners are entitled to equal pay-scale. According to the contentions of the respondent-Authority, the Government has implemented the Government Resolution so as to increase the opportunity of employment in the education field and there shall not be any adverse effect. They are bound by the terms and conditions of appointment as laid down in the impugned resolution. Therefore, the question does not arise for violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.