PRATAP NARAIN BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the order of the State Government creating a new grade carrying higher scale of pay in the cadra of Block Extension Education and for a further direction requiring the State Government to frame rules regarding the conditions of service for the post of Block Extension Educator, District Extension Educator, Mass Education and Information Officer etc. and all the classes of employees under the Public Health Department.

(2.) BEFORE we come to the facts that have given rise to the grievance, it would be proper to refer to the service history of the petitioner. The petitioner entered the services of the Government as a Sanitary Inspector. In about April 1965, the petitioner passed the Sanitary Inspector's training from Rewa after undergoing one year's course. The petitioner was vested with extra power of Food Inspector. By an order dated 27 -7 -1970. he was transferred as Block Extension Educator in Primary Health Centre, Barai, District Gwalior.

(3.) THE petitioner was holding the post of a Block Extension Educator in the scale of pay of Rs.120 -4 -140 -5 -160 -EB -6 -190. The Government then created a new grade for the post of Block Extension Educator in the time scale of Rs. 150 -150 -5 -160 -6 -190 -EB -6 -220 -10 -240 -EB -12 -1/2 -290. The Government appointed a few person in this new grade carrying better pay scale. The Government here fixed a minimum qualification for the new grade, which was M.A., M. Sc. or M. A. in Sociology or Social work. The petitioner contends that the creation of the new grade in the time scale of Rs.150 -290 is illegal as it creates a superior class of servants in the same cadre In the basis of holding of M. A. or M. Sc. degree which differentia has no national connection with the duties of Block Extension Educator thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the Block Extension Educator is not a technical post but requires a special training and experience and the persons like the petitioner and more suited to the post. The Government, not having specified the principles which would govern the recruitment to the two grades of Block Extension Educator the creation of the new grade, carrying higher scale of pay, was arbitrary and against fair play. It adversely affected the petitioner. Since according to the Government own policy, academic qualifications were not taken into account in the matter of departmental promotions, the basis adopted in the creation of new grade was bad. The new grade created was not based on any intelligible differentia between the two classes of block Extension Educator having any nexus to the object sought to be achieved Since persons of different qualifications and degrees were all intergrated into one class it was not possible to create a new class out of the above on the basis of degree of M.A. or M.Sc. The petitioner contends that he is better trained and qualified and having served as a Sanitary Inspector, was more competent to the higher scale of pay in the new grade. The creation of the new grade was arbitrary, fanciful and unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down.