R R GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by 66 persons who are working as Professors/associate Professor in various Departments of the University of Rajasthan detail whereof has been given in Schedule-A filed with the petition and it is not necessary to mention them here.

(2.) ALL the petitioners were appointed as Teachers in the cadres of Lecturers in the University of Rajasthan in different Departments. The source of recruitment for Teachers in the University of Rajasthan was direct recruitment from open market till 15-11-84 as per the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974. Persons who were appointed at particular posts used to continue on those particular posts for number of years for various reasons and they remained stagnant for a pretty long time. Realising this, and to avoid frustration among the teaching community, the Act of 1974 was amended by Amending Act No. 18 of 1984 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, vide notification dated 15-11-1984, by which new section (11) was added which provided for personal promotion against ex-cadre posts. It has been mentioned in Sec. 11 that Lecturers (Assistant Professor) were eligible for promotion to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) after having rendered minimum 15 years of service or 12 years service with the qualification laid down by the University and such promotions were required to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit. , whereas Readers (Associate Professors) were eligible for promotion on the basis of merit alone. Such promotions could be given to a person only once u/s. 11. Most of the petitioners were promoted under the Scheme of this Sec. 11. Soon thereafter, direct recruitment was also made and most of the petitioners had not availed of the opportunity as they had already been appointed as per Sec. 11 added in 1984. The petitioners have mentioned a typical example of Dr. H. L. Agrawal who had been appointed as a Professor in the Department of Statistics vide order dated 29th October, 1987 in pursuance of the Scheme envisaged u/s. 11. He was called upon to act as the Member of the Selection Committee for selecting to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in Statistics, whereas he was also asked to appear for the interview for the post of Professor in Statistics.

(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. All the teachers belonging to one particular category i. e. Associate Professor or Professors, constitute one class. Their work is identical. Their duties are identical. Their duty hours are also the same. Their designation is same. They are supposed to teach the classes as per the time-table. They are supposed to teach same students with same subjects, and also to act as guides for research work without any distinction, whether they are promotees under ex-cadre promotion scheme or direct recruits appointed by direct recruitment from open market irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed on 1-1-1986 or after 1-1-1986. Persons who had been promoted under the ex-cadre promotion scheme could not have envisaged or thought that the government at the later point of time will pass such orders distinguishing between the direct recruits and promotees under ex-cadre promotion scheme and therefore/they did not think it necessary or proper to opt and appear at the time of selection as direct recruits from open market. If they had known it earlier, they would have certainly offered themselves for selection by way of direct recruitment. All the Professors and Associate Professors working in the Universities in Rajasthan are similarly situated with reference to their status, designation, nature of work, quantum of work, quality of work, duty they have to perform and therefore, source of recruitment does not make them non-distinct or different in any manner, whatsoever. They all teach to the same set of students and there is no distinction between the promotees or direct recruitees. Under Article 39 (d) contained in Part-IV of the Constitution of India, State has to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both the men and women. Though Article 39 is included in Chapter of directive principles of State Policy but it is fundamental in nature. It purpose is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. For the two classes of persons doing same work under the same employer with similar responsibilities under similar working conditions, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply and no discrimination can be allowed and the Government cannot discriminate one class with other in paying different pay scales. The State is under a constitutional obligations to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. No artificial discrimination can be allowed to be made in the manner it has been done in the present case. Their lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jaipal's case (supra) have very emphatically held that difference in mode of selection will not effect the application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work for both the classes of persons doing similar functions and duties under the same employer. In the present case, it is not disputed nor it can be disputed that the Professors and Associate Professors appointed on promotion under the ex-cadre promotion scheme or selected by direct recruitment work under one employer, University of Rajasthan and performing similar work under similar conditions. Their nature of duties and functions being the same, are entitled to the same pay scales whether they are direct recruits or promoted on the basis of excadre promotion scheme.