C. Vidyalankar and Others vs Government of A.P. and Others

C.V.N. Sastri, J.—The short question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioners, who are Physical Directors working in private aided Junior Colleges, are entitled to the same scale of pay on par with Junior Lecturers which is allowed to their counterparts in Government junior colleges.

It is the claim of the petitioners that the Physical Directors working in Government Junior Colleges are paid the scale of pay of Rs. 1550-3050 on par with Junior Lecturers whereas the said scale of pay is not extended to them and the denial of the said scale of pay to them is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The claim of the petitioners is resisted by the respondents by taking the stand that the said scale of pay of Rs. 1550-3050 is allowable only to the Physical Directors who possess the qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 159 Education (CD1-2) Department, dated 22-4-1991 as subsequently amended through G.O.Ms.No. 305 dated 11-9-1992 and that the petitioners are not eligible for the said scale of pay since they do not possess the qualifications prescribed in the said G.Os.

The qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 159 dated 22-4-1991 to get the benefit of the said scale of pay for the existing Physical Directors working in Junior Colleges are:

"Post-Graduate Degree (M.A.,/M.Sc.,/M.Com.,) with a Degree/ Diploma or a certificate in Physical Education"

This has been subsequently amended through G.O.Ms.No. 305 dt.11-9-1992 to include "A Degree in any faculty plus M.P.Ed.,'' For the future recruits to the posts of Physical Directors, the prescribed qualifications are:

"Degree in any Faculty plus M.P.Ed., 1st or 2nd class with not less than 50% marks."

It is not disputed that the petitioners do not possess the qualifications prescribed in the said G.Os. The petitioners, however, seek to rely on the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 114, Education (CO.ORD. HE.l) Department dated 22-4-1996 and G.O.Ms. No. 151 Education (CO-ORD. HE.1) Department dated 3-7-1996 whereunder the Government extended the benefit of the said scale of pay to certain Physical Directors mentioned therein with effect from 1-9-1989 dispensing with the qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22-4-1991. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No. 114 dated 22-4-1996 shows that the said order was issued by the Government for implementation of the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No. 3387 of 1990 dated 29-6-1992 filed by Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy and 6 others who were Physical Directors working in Government Junior Colleges. By the said order the Government ordered that the High Court''s direction in W.P.No. 3387 of 1990 for extension of the benefit of the pay scales on par with Junior Lecturers to the petitioners therein with effect from 1-9-1989 be implemented subject to fulfilling the qualifications and conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 159 Education dated 22-4-1991. It is further stated in the said order as follows:

"5. Government have also considered the entire issue and have decided to extend the benefit to the eligible Physical Directors of the parity of pay scales with Junior Lecturers with effect from 1-9-1989 subject to fulfilling the qualifications and conditions in G.O.Ms.No. 159, dated 22-4-1991. Government further direct they are eligible to draw the arrears with effect from 1-9-1989."

The Government subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No, 151 dated 3-7-1996 amending the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 114 dated 22-4-1996 by deleting the words "Subject to fulfilling the qualifications and conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.159 Education (CE-I) Department, dated 22-4-1991."

The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that in view of the said amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No. 151 dated 3-7-1996, the qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 159 dated 22-4-1991 are no longer in force and the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of extension of higher scale of pay on par with the Junior Lecturers without reference to the qualifications. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. G.O.Ms.No. 151 dated 3-7-1996 cannot be construed as a general amendment of G.O.Ms.No. 159 dated 22-4-1991 dispensing with the qualifications prescribed in the latter. It is only an amendment issued to G.O.Ms.No. 114 dated 22-4-1996 to facilitate the implementation of the orders of the High Court in W.P.No. 3387 of 1990 and as such its application is limited only to the individuals mentioned therein. We are, therefore, of the view that reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 151 dated 3-7-1996 by the petitioners is misplaced. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the circumstances leading to the issuance of the orders in the said G.O.Ms.No. 114 dated 22-4-1996 and G.O.Ms.No. 151 dated 3-7-1996 are explained and it is stated that the cases which resulted in the issuance of the said orders were instituted prior to G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22-4-1991 wherein the qualifications for getting the benefit of the higher scale of pay were prescribed for the first time and as such the said orders are not relevant for the purpose of the case on hand.

It is true that, as a general rule, the Physical Directors working in private aided Junior Colleges are entitled to the same scale of pay which is allowed to their counterparts working in Government Junior Colleges as equal pay for equal work, which is a concomitant of Article 14, is not an abstract doctrine and it is now recognised as a fundamental right. But it is not shown by the petitioners that all Physical Directors in Government Junior Colleges are uniformly allowed the said scale of pay irrespective of their qualifications. G.O.Ms. No. 159 dated 22-4-1991, which prescribed the qualifications to get the benefit of the said scale of pay, is applicable to Physical Directors working in Government Junior Colleges as well as those working in private aided Junior Colleges. Insistence on higher qualifications for the grant of higher pay is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary nor is it violative of the constitutional code of equality. It is the settled position that Article 14 of the Constitution, which strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment, at the same time permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation or administrative mandate. Classification must, however, be founded on an intelligible basis which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus with the object to be achieved by the differentiation made in the statute or order in question (See Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others Vs. Union of India and others, and State of Mysore and Another Vs. P. Narasing Rao, It must be borne in mind that the scale of pay in question is the scale of pay applicable to the Junior Lecturers. When that is sought to be made applicable to the Physical Directors, it is but natural that qualifications on par with the Junior Lecturers should be insisted upon. We are, therefore, satisfied that the stand taken by the respondents is justified.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.