GHANSHYAMLAL SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by Ghanshyamlal Soni who was appointed a Lecturer in a Government Junior Technical School in 1961. He has claimed several reliefs with which we will deal separately. It is necessary to give a short resume of facts which have given rise to this petition.

(2.) IN 1961 the Government of Madhya Pradesh published an advertisement for the post of Junior Lecturer in Government Junior Technical Schools, Madhya Pradesh. The qualification prescribed for the post was a degree in Science. The petitioner applied and on the 1st September 1961, he was appointed a Junior Lecturer (non-technical) in Science on a pay scale of Rs. 150-10-250. It was expressly mentioned in the order of his appointment that the designation as well as the pay scale were liable to be revised. Subsequently, in 1962 the Government declared the unified scale as well as the revised scale for these lecturers who were then called Lecturers (non-technical) in Government Junior Technical Schools. The unified scale was from Rs. 100 to Rs. 250, while the revised scale was from Rs. 200 to Rs. 400. Further details are not relevant. These scales were, however, actually not made applicable to the petitioner as the Principal of his Institution was doubtful whether these unified and revised scales were applicable to new entrants also who had been appointed after the reorganisation of the State or whether they were applicable only to those who had been absorbed from different units. While this state of uncertainty existed, the State Government issued a notification (Annexure A-20) dated 21st November, 1966 by which unified scales as well as the revised scales were refixed and all the previous notifications in that respect were superseded. Under this notification the unified scales were to be effective from 1st April 1958 and the revised scales from 1st July, 1960. By this notification Lecturers (non-technical) were divided into two classes. Those holding post-graduates degrees were to get a unified scale of Rs. 200-10-250-15-325-EB-15-400 and a revised scale of Rs. 250-10-290-15-350-EB. 20-450. The second category of lecturers, who were only graduates, were to get a unified scale of Rs. 110 running up to Rs. 250 and a revised scale of Rs. 150 going up to Rs. 290. These scales were applied to the petitioner also and by order dated 30th April, 1969, (Annexure-A-XXII) the Government directed that a sum of Rs. 3,975. 63, which had been overpaid to the petitioner according to the scale mentioned in his appointment letter and which was in excess of the new scales applied to him, should be deducted from his future pay. He was thus, being only a graduate, not given the higher scale. Against these orders the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government violated principles of equality under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution by creating two categories of Junior Lecturers (nontechnical) by the notification dated 21st November, 1966 (Annexure-A-XX) and that, that being illegal, the petitioner was entitled to the higher scale on the ground that lecturers, who were post-graduates, and those who were graduates performed the same kind of work, and were entitled to the same pay. We are not impressed by this argument. The Government was entitled to create two classes among the Lecturers based upon higher qualifications. There can be no doubt that particularly in the Education Department a better qualified lecturer can perform his duties more efficiently than a less qualified one. The criterion, therefore, for making this classification is both reasonable and based on an intelligible differentia and also has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. After reorganisation of this State the Government was entitled to determine the classes of its employees for different purposes and if in 1966 the State Government decided to create two classes of lecturers for these subjects, it is not possible to say that the principle of equality was violated. In Kishori v. Union of India their Lordships of the Supreme Court recognized this right of the State and observed:-- It is fantastic to suppose that Article 16 of the Constitution forbids the creation of different grades in the Government service,. . . . In that case among the Income-tax Officers two grades had been created called Class I and Class II and this was upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, in State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao the State of Mysore created two classes of tracers, those who had passed the S. S. L. C. examination and those who had not passed the same, and fixed different pay scales for the two classes of tracers. The High Court struck it down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and at page 352 of the report observed as follows:-- In our opinion, therefore, higher educational qualifications such as success in the S. S. L. C. examination are relevant considerations for fixing a higher pay scale for tracers who have passed the S. S. L. C. examination and the classification of two grades of tracers in the new Mysore State, one for matriculate tracers with a higher scale and the other for non-matriculate tracers with a lower pay scale is not violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. We are, therefore, unable to agree with this contention of the petitioner.