http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. BASAVALINGAPPA

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/12/1986

BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  411            1987 SCR  (1) 579  1986 SCC  Supl.  661     JT 1986  1090  1986 SCALE  (2)1095

ACT: Civil Service.     Workshop  Mechanic  and  Workshop  Instructor--Basis  of recruitment-Diploma   holder.and  certificate  holder   both eligible--Placed   in  same  pay  scale--Revision   of   pay scales--Different pay scales to Diploma homers and  Certifi- cate homers given-- Whether permissible.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent was appointed as a Workshop Mechanic.  He was promoted to the post of Workshop InstrUctor on  7.8.1959 in the pay scale of Rs.100-120. The pay scales were  revised w.e.f. 1.1.1961. Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs.  150-320,  and Certificate holders Rs.  150-250  in  the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respondent, a  Certificate holder,  was  given the pay scale of Rs.  150-250.  The  pay scales  were again revised in 1964 and Workshop  Instructors with second class Diploma or equivalent qualifications  with 10 years experience were given the pay scale of  Rs.260-500, but  the respondent did not get this scale in spite  of  re- peated representations made to the State Government.     The respondent filed a Writ Petition alleging  discrimi- nation.  The  High Court allowed the petition  holding:  (1) that  for recruitment to the post of Workshop Instructor  no distinction is made between the holders of a Certificate and holders of a Diploma, (2) that at the time when the respond- ent was recruited there was no difference in the pay  scales prescribed  for holders of Diploma and holders  of  Certifi- cate, and the basis for recruitment was that Diploma  holder and Certificate holder both were entitled to be appointed to the same post in the same pay scale, and (3) that by  subse- quent  revision of pay scale different pay scales could  not be  enforced  for  the same post merely on the  basis  of  a holder of a Certificate or a Diploma because as an  Instruc- tor the person will perform the same duties and will do  the same work in spite of the fact that he may be a  Certificate holder or a Diploma holder, and directed that the respondent be placed in the pay scale not lower than that of the Diplo- ma holders. 580     In appeal to this Court on behalf of the Appellant-State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

it  was contended: (1) that the different pay scales on  the basis  of difference in educational qualifications could  he justified  and will mount to reasonable  classification  and will not he hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, (2)  that a  Diploma is a higher qualification than a Certificate  and (3) that the view taken by the High Court is not correct. Dismissing the Appeal,     HELD:  1. Neither there is any curriculum on record  nor any  other material to draw the inference that Diploma is  a higher  qualification than a Certificate. At the  time  when respondent  was  recruited there was only one  cadre  and  a Diploma holder or a Certificate holder both were entitled to he  recruited as an Instructor on the same pay  scale.  This circumstance  indicates that the two were considered  to  he alike. [582E-F]     2. There is no material on record to indicate that  when the  pay  scales  were revised and  subsequently  they  were further  revised it was done on the basis of  some  material indicating  that the Diploma became a  better  qualification than the Certificate holder. It was because of this the High Court did not go into the general question as to whether  on the basis of educational qualifications different pay scales can  or  could not be prescribed and in the absence  of  any material  it will not he possible for this Court to go  into that question. [582F-H]     3.  On  the facts of the present case it could.  not  he said that the High Court committed any error. [583A-B]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  110  of 1974.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated 6.3.  1973  of  the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2213 of 1970.     R.B. Datar, Swaraj Kaushal, K.M. Muzamnil and N.  Nettar for the Appellant. S.S. Khanduja and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA,  J. This appeal arises out of Special Leave granted  by this 581 Court  against the Judgment of the High Court in Writ  Peti- tion No. 2213 of 1970 decided on 6.3.1973.     The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal  are that the respondent was appointed as a Workshop Mechanic  in B.D.T.  College of Engineering, Devangere in the year  1953. He was promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor by  order dated 7.8.1959 in the pay scale of Rs. 100-200. In 1961  the pay scales were revised with effect from 1.1. 1961.  Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs. 150-320 and Certifi- cate  holders Rs. 150-250 in the cadre of Workshop  Instruc- tor.  The respondent who was a Certificate holder and not  a Diploma  holder was accordingly given the pay scale  of  Rs. 150-250.     By  a  notification  dated 5.5.1964  the  Government  of Mysore  made  rules  known as  Mysore  Education  Department (Technical Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules and  it is  alleged  that at about the same time the  Government  of India  after  accepting  recommendations of  the  All  India Council for Technical Education suggested revised pay scales of pay of Workshop Instructors and in these  recommendations also  the Workshop Instructors with second class Diploma  or equivalent  qualifications  with 10  years  experience  were given the pay scales of Rs.260-500 and it is alleged that as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

the respondent was not entitled to this pay scale he was not given.  It  is alleged that in 1969 the  respondent  made  a representation  to the State Government and when he did  not succeed in spite of repeated representations he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore  alleging that  by  not  giving the pay scale to  the  respondent  the Government of Karnataka had discriminated.     The  High Court by its judgment dated 6.3. 1973  allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent and directed  that the  petitioner  to be placed in the proper  pay  scale  and should not be placed in the pay scale lower than the Diploma holders.  It  is  against this judgment that  the  State  of Karnataka  after obtaining leave from this  Court  preferred this  appeal.  Learned Counsel for the  appellant  contended that so far as the present respondent is concerned the State Government is not very keen not to give the advantage to him but  it was contended that the matter is of  general  impor- tance  as  according to the learned  counsel  different  pay scales on the basis of difference in educational  qualifica- tions  could  be  justified and will  amount  to  reasonable classification and therefore and will not be hit by  Article 14 of the Constitution. He by reference to certain  observa- tions in some of the judgments of this Court contended  that the view taken by the High Court is not correct. 582     It  is very significant that Hon’ble the High Court  did not  indulge in the examination of the general question.  It restricted  its  consideration to the facts of  the  present case  as it stood. It is observed in the judgment  that  for recruitment  to the post of Workshop Instructor no  distinc- tion is made between the holders of a Certificate and  hold- ers  of a Diploma. It is also observed in the judgment  that at the time when this respondent was recruited there was  no difference  in  the  pay scales prescribed  for  holders  of Diploma  and holders of Certificate and when at the time  of recruitment  they were recruited on the basis  that  diploma holder  and  certificate  holder both were  entitled  to  be appointed  to the same post in the same pay scale. The  High Court took in view that by subsequent revision of pay  scale different pay scales could not be enforced for the same post merely on the basis of a holder of a certificate or a diplo- ma  as  it was held that as an Instructor ’the  person  will perform  the same duties and will do the same work in  spite of the fact that he may be a certificate holder or a diploma holder.     It  is not disputed before us that so far as  the  facts stated in the judgment of the High Court are concerned  they are not disputed. It is admitted that at the time when  this respondent  was recruited there was only one cadre and  that was of Instructor and only one pay scale and the certificate holder or a diploma,holder both were entitled to be recruit- ed  on that post. No material is in the record on the  basis ’of which it could be contended that there was any  substan- tial difference at that time between the two  qualifications although they were described differently. It was argued that a diploma is a higher qualification than a certificate.  But neither  there  is any curriculum on record  nor  any  other material  to draw that inference. On the contrary this  cir- cumstance  that at the time when respondent was recruited  a diploma holder or a certificate holder both were entitled to be recruited as an Instructor on the same pay scale and this indicates  that in those days the two were considered to  be alike.     There is also no material to indicate that when the  pay scales were revised and subsequently when they were  further

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

revised it was done on the basis of some material indicating that  the  diploma became a better  qualification  than  the certificate. In fact we have no further material to  examine the  question in the broader aspect. It appears that it  was because  of this that the learned Judges of the  High  Court accordingly disposed of the matter on the facts of this case alone and therefore did not go into the general question  as to  whether on the basis of educational qualifications  dif- ferent pay scales can or cannot be prescribed and in absence of any material it will not be possible for us 583 to go into that question. Apart from it that question is not material  for  decision  of the present appeal,  it  is  not necessary for us to examine the matter which will merely  be an  academic exercise. On the facts of the present  case  it cannot  be said that the High Court committed any  error  in allowing  the  Writ Petition filed by  the  respondent.  The appeal  is  therefore dismissed with costs.  The  respondent shall be entitled to cost of the appeal. A.P.J.                                                Appeal dismissed. 584