http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N.N. SWAMY & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1237            1977 SCR  (2) 774  1977 SCC  (2) 508

ACT:             Constitution of India, Article 16--Private college taken         over by State Government-Absorption of  staff--Consideration         of  eligibility  for  appointment   Readers--Differentiation         between  similarly  situated Readers on  ground  of  drawing         salary  of  Rs.600/- or more on date of take  over,  whether         amounts  to  denial equal opportunity for  employment  under         Art. 16.

HEADNOTE:             The  respondents were working as Readers  in  Khallikote         College,  a private institution which was taken over by  the         Orissa  Government on March 9, 1971. A  Government  circular         containing conditions governing taking over the services  of         the  teaching  staff of Khallikote College,  was  issued  on         March  23,  1971, whereby the respondents were appointed  as         lecturers  in  class II temporarily on ad hoc  basis  for  a         period of six months.  At the end of this period, the  names         of  those Readers who were drawing a salary of  Rs.600/-  or         more per month on the date of take-over, were recommended to         the  Public  Service Commission for  the  determination  of’         their suitability for  appointment as Readers.  The respond-         ents and others who were drawing less than Rs.600/- were not         considered  eligible for such recommendation.    Their  writ         petition against the denial of equal opportunity under  Art.         16 was accepted by the High Court.         Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court,             HELD:--The  condition of drawing of Rs.600/- or more  on         the  date   of taking over, which has been laid down in  the         circular  as a particular qualification for eligibility  for         appointment  as Reader and later for consideration of  their         suitability by the Public Service Commission for appointment         as  Reader,   is arbitrary and discriminatory.   It  has  no         nexus with the object underlying   the qualification test in         an educational institution having regard to the most  essen-         tial  condition of intrinsic quality and efficiency  of  the         teachers, and results  in denial of equal opportunity to the         respondents  in the matter  of employment under the  Govern-         ment under Art. 16 of the Constitution.  [719 C-D, F-G]             The  General  Manager  Southern  Railway  v.  Rangachari         [1962] 2 SCR 586, referred.             Smt. Juthika Bhattacharya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

       and Others [1976] SCC 96, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1357-58         of 1975.             (Appeals by special leave from the judgment  and   order         dated  4-2-1974  of  the Orissa High  Court  in  O.J.C.  No.         410/1971).         M.K. Ramamurthi and B. Parthasarathi, for the appellants.             Gobind  Das,  N.V.  Rama Das and G.  Narayana  Rao,  for         respondents 1-8 in CA 1357/75.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             GOSWAMI, J--These appeals by special leave are  directed         against the judgment of the Orissa High Court of February 4,         1974.             There  was  a  private college known   by  the  name  of         Khallikote  College.  This is an institution which grew  out         of a school established         775            in   1856.   The management had to  meet  with  financial         crisis  in   the  past and obtained financial  help  in  the         shape of liberal endowment under a trust deed from the  then         zamindar  of  Khallikote.   The institution, it  is  stated,         became  one of the premier colleges in  the town of  Behram-         pur,  Ganjam  District, Orissa.  The  College  was        at         first  affiliated  to the Andhra University at  Waltair  and         thereafter   to the Utkal University, and since 1967 it  has         been affiliated to the Behrampur University.         The  Government of Orissa took over the management  of   the         College  on and from March 9, 1971, and a formal   agreement         was executed between the managing committee  of the  College         and  the Governor of the State.  The College was taken  over         by  the Government in pursuance of the unanimous  resolution         of  the  managing committee of February 18,  1970,  and  the         transfer  to  the Government was of all the  assets  of  the         College  but without any liability.  The managing  committee         continued to be liable for the outstanding liabilities, if         any,  of  the  College  for   which  Government   was    not         liable.  The College after the take   over was  administered         as  a  Government College.             The  eight writ petitioners in the High Court  (Respond-         ents herein) were working as Readers in different  faculties         in the said College on the date of the aforesaid transfer in         the  scale of pay Rs.510--860/- whereas the Government scale         for Readers  was  Rs.600-1000/-.  On the date of take  over,         namely, March 9, 1971, each of the respondents was drawing a         salary  somewhere less than Rs.600/-; three of them less  by         only Rs.30/-.             The  material  particulars  of the ten  Readers  of  the         College  who were all earlier in private employment, includ-         ing  the   eight  Respondents, are as follows  (Annexure  I,         Volume 1I of the Paper Book):         Sl.   Name  Date of  Date of  Date of  Confirmed  Pay as on         No.         Birth    1st      promo-     as       9-3-1971                              appoint- tion                (date   of                              ment                         take over)         1.Sri N.N.Swamy   8-3-34 21-7-58  1-12-68  Reader   Rs.570         2.Sri N.Satapathy 6-9-33 July’59  27-1-70  Reader   Rs.540         3.Sri P.Haridas  10-3-36 25-10-61 25-10-69 Lecturer Rs.540         4. Sri J.J. Rao  16-3-36  7-7-59   1-7-68  Reader   Rs.540         5. Sri K.C. Samantra               5-7-70  Lecturer                                        All the posts are permanent         6. Sri G.J. Chineswar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

       Rao              30-9-31  3-9-57   1-10-67 Reader   Rs.570         7. Sri   Ch. Chandra         Sekhar Patro . .  1-7-35  1-8-58   1-1-57  Reader   Rs.570         8. Sri Narayana          Behera          1-10-37  2-8-62  13-9-70  Lecturer Rs.510         9. Sri T.K.Satyan-         murty           14-9-27   1-7-49   4-5-59  Reader   Rs.660         10.Sri V.S.R.            Gupta        28-12-30  1-7-52   4-9-69  Lecturer Rs.600         776         It  will  appear  that five Respondents out  of  eight  were         confirmed as Readers prior to the take over. Three  Respond-         ents were confirmed as Lecturers but were promoted as  Read-         ers  prior  to the transfer of the College.   The  last  two         Readers  in the list who. were lucky to  draw salary of  the         amount of Rs.660/- and Rs.600/- respectively as on the  date         of  take  over, were treated differently by  the  Government         from the eight Respondents on the sole ground that they were         drawing  as  Reader  salary of more than  Rs.600/-.   It  is         rather poignant that the tenth Reader in the list was   only         a confirmed Lecturer whereas, as already shown, five of  the         Respondents were confirmed  Readers although drawing  salary         less than Rs.600/-           On  July 30, 1970, the Government   prescribed  qualifica-         tions for appointment as a Reader by a Circular of that date         addressed  to the Director of Public  Instructions   (Higher         Education)   Orissa, which appears to supersede the  earlier         circulars  on the subject.  It was stated in  that  circular         that the "Government have been pleased to order that follow-         ing  principles shall hence forward be followed in  the  ap-         pointment Readers, namely,                           (a) no officer who has not had at least  8                       years  of  teaching experience as  a  Lecturer                       would be eligible for consideration; and                            (b)  the post of Reader shall  originally                       be  filled  up  by promotion  subject  to  the                       satisfactory  performance and conduct  of  the                       officer as a lecturer".            On March 23, 1971, the Government issued a circular  con-         taining conditions governing taking over the services of the         teaching staff of the College.  Paras 4 and 5 of that circu-         lar, which are material for our purpose, may be quoted:                               "4.  The State Government shall  offer                       ad hoc  appointment to all staff inposition on                       the  date of take over subject to para 5,  and                       sub-para  (d) of this paragraph for  a  period                       not exceeding six months in each case,  treat-                       ing  all such staff as fresh entrants to  Gov-                       ernment service.  The final absorption of such                       staff  in Government service shall be  subject                       to  the following conditions:                        x          x         x         x        x                          (b)  That after termination of services  of                       surplus  personnel,  the cases of  staff   re-                       tained  in   Class  I and Class  II  shall  be                       referred to the Orissa Public Service  Commis-                       sion for determination of their suitability to                       hold  posts in Class I or II as the  case  may                       be.  The services of those who are  not  found                       suitable by the P.S.C. (Public Service Commis-                       sion) shall  also, be terminated by giving one                       month’s  notice  in each’  case.  Those  found                       suitable  by the Commission shall  be  finally                       absorbed  in  respective Trade of  the  O.E.S.                       (Orissa Education Service) for which they  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

                     found                       777                       suitable.  It is hereby clarified that at  the                       time of reference to the P.S.C. for determina-                       tion  of suitability for appointment as  Read-                       ers, cases of Lecturers of Government College,                       eligible  for   appointment as  Readers  shall                       also be simultaneously referred to the  P.S.C.                       for consideration against those posts.                        X         X          X          X                          (c)   While   making   reference   to   the                       P.S.C  .......  cases of those ad hoc  Readers                       who would have been normally, entitled to  pay                       of less  than Rs.600/- per month on 9-3-71  by                       application   of the  formula "minimum of  the                       scale  of pay of Readers in force in the  Col-                       leges on the date of their appointment as such                       by the Ex-Managing Committee plus one.  incre-                       ment in that scale for every completed year of                       service  upto  9-3-71" would be  referred  for                       determination of their suitability for absorp-                       tion as Lecturers only.                         X             X          X             X                             5. Ad hoc appointment shall be issued to                       all  Professors  and such of  the  Readers  in                       position,  who on  the date of take-over  were                       in  receipt  of pay of Rs.600/- per  month  or                       more,  in  the  scale  of  pay  Rs.600--1000/-                       against posts of Readers.  Readers who on  the                       date  of  take over were in receipt of pay  of                       less than Rs.600/-  per  month and all lectur-                       ers in position on that  date  shall be  given                       ad hoc appointment against the post of lectur-                       ers  in   the   scale  of  Rs.260--780/-  with                       effect from the date of take over".                        X         X         X         X             Basing  on  the   aforesaid provisions   of  the   above         circular  the Director of Public Instructions sent on  April         20,  1971,  to each of the Respondents  appointment  letters         whereby   they  were  appointed  as Lecturers  in  Class  II         temporarily on ad hoc basis for a period of six months  with         effect  from  the forenoon of March 9, 1971,  or  till   the         appointment  is made in consultation with the Orissa  Public         Service’ Commission,  whichever  is  earlier;   subject   to         verification  of character and antecedents and production of         medical  fitness  certificate.   Appointments  were,   thus,         offered  to. the Respondents under the terms and  conditions         of take over which have been already extracted.             The  grievance of the Respondents is that although  they         had all the requisite qualifications for the appointment  as         Reader and they were all holding the posts of Reader  before         the  take over and five of them were even confirmed  Readers         but  since under the aforesaid terms  of the take over  they         were  drawing a salary of less than Rs.600/- on the date  of         take over. their names were not referred to the Public         778         Service  Commission for consideration of their’  suitability         for appointment as Readers in the Government College.  It is         not  disputed that they are otherwise educationally  and  by         experience  qualified  for  the post of  Reader.   The  High         Court found that the requirement of eight years of  teaching         experience, as mentioned above, which is needed for appoint-         ment as a Reader is more than amply fulfilled by each of the         Respondents.  The High Court accepted the Writ Petitions and         held  that the Respondents were entitled  to   consideration

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

       by the  Public Service Commission for appointment as   Read-         ers’  and  hence these appeals by the State which  are  con-         fined only to the above question.             It  is  submitted by Mr. Ramamurthi on   behalf  of  the         appellants  that the High Court erred in directing the  Gov-         ernment  to take  into account, as experience,  the  service         of  the Respondents  while they were in the private  college         since,   according to him,  the necessary  qualification  is         eight years experience in Class II, Orissa  Education  Serv-         ice (O.E.S.).  This submission is based on the Orissa Educa-         tion  Service Class I (Recruitment to the  College   Branch)         Rules, 1971, issued on July 19, 1971, produced for the first         time in this Court.  It is submitted that since the Respond-         ents   have  not  completed  eight years of service  in  the         O.E.S.  Class II (Lecturer’s grade) in  Government  service,         they are not entitled to be considered by the Public Service         Commission  for appointment as  Readers.  We are unable   to         accept this submission based on these Rules.  These Rules of         July  19, 1971, were not produced in the High Court and  the         reason  is  obvious that these were not relied upon  by  the         State in connection with  the appointment of the Respondents         as   Readers after the  College had been taken over  by  the         Government  on March 9, 1971.  The argument has,  therefore,         to  be supported on the intrinsic  strength of the  circular         of March 23, 1971.             Apart  from  this, there is a stronger  reason  not  to.         entertain   this  submission  at this stage.   Even  in  the         Special Leave Petition filed by the State on July 15,  1974,         there  was no mention whatsoever about the  aforesaid  Rules         and  necessarily  no  ground  was taken in  the Petition  on         the basis of these Rules.  Being conscious of this  position         Mr.  Ramamurthi filed a Civil Miscellaneous   Petition  No..         4069  of 1976 before this Court on April 30,  1976, to  urge         this  additional  ground.  After hearing Mr.  Ramamurthi  we         rejected  this prayer  for urging the additional  ground  by         such a belated application when the High Court had no oppor-         tunity to consider the question.             The only question, therefore, which  requires   decision         in   these appeals is _whether the Respondents were   denied         equal  opportunity under Article 16 of the  Constitution  in         the  matter of appointment  as Readers under the  Government         in the manner laid down in the circular of March 23, 1971.         The following facts are admitted:             The  Respondents and two others,  namely, T.K.   Satyan-         murty (No. 9) and V.S.R.. Gupta (No. 10) in the list (Annex-         ure I) were all Readers in the private College, each. having         put in more than eight         779         years of service there as a Lecturer.  T. K. Satyanmurty was         promoted as Reader on 4-5-1969 and was drawing Rs.660/-   on         the  date  of  taking over.  V.S.R. Gupta  was  promoted  as         Reader  on  4-9-1969 and was drawing Rs.600/-,  the  minimum         according to the aforesaid Government circular, on the  date         of taking over.  He was not  even confirmed as a Reader  but         was   only  confirmed  as a Lecturer. Amongst  the  Respond-         ents, N.N.  Swamy (No.  1),  N. Satapathy (No. 2), J.J.  Rao         (No.  4), G.J. Chineswar Rao (No. o) and Ch. Chandra  Sekhar         Patro  (No. 7) m the list  (Annexure 1)  were  confirmed  as         Readers and four of them were promoted even earlier than No.         9 and No. 10.  It is thus clear that the condition of  draw-         ing  of Rs.600/- or more on the date of taking  over,  which         has  been  laid down in the said circular  as  a  particular         qualification for eligibility for appointment as Reader  and         later  for consideration of their suitability by the  Public         Service  Commission for appointment as Reader, is  arbitrary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

       and discriminatory.  This condition has no  nexus,   whatev-         er,  with the object underlying the  qualification test   in         an   educational  institution  having  regard  to  the  most         essential  condition of intrinsic quality and efficiency  of         the  teachers.  It is not unknown that private  institutions         generally  have great handicaps  in the  matter  of  finance         and oftener the teaching staff in a private college has  not         the  same  scales of pay and sometimes even has  much  lower         scales  than  that of the Government colleges.   It  is  one         thing  to lay down appropriate educational and  intelligibly         relevant  qualifications for certain posts in a college  and         also  teaching experience of a specified duration  but  com-         plete  ignoration,  without valid reason,  of  the  teaching         experience  of  a lecturer in a private  college,  otherwise         qualified, on the sole ground of drawing a particular amount         of salary on a particular date cannot be countenanced.  T.K.         Satyanmurty (No. 9) was  promoted  as  a Reader while in the         private  college much later  than the  four of the  Respond-         ents  (Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 in Annexure I).  He happened   to;         draw  Rs.660/- on the date of take over, while the  Respond-         ents  were drawing a little lower pay.  The former was  pre-         ferred and given the ad hoc appointment of a Reader and  was         held  as  eligible for consideration by the  Public  Service         Commission for  appointment  as Reader and the claims of the         Respondents were ignored.  Thus even amongst the Readers  in         the private  college,  similarly situated,  the only  ground         for ignoring the claims of the said Respondents was  drawing         of  a lesser pay; even though it may be less by Rs.30/-,  on         March 9, 1971.  This ground for a most unreasonable  differ-         entiation in picking and choosing from amongst the employees         similarly  situated on an absolutely artificial and  irrele-         vant consideration results in denial of equal opportunity to         the  Respondents  in  the matter of   employment  under  the         Government under Article 16 of the Constitution.            It is well-settled that under Article  16(1) of the  Con-         stitution  matters relating to employment not only mean  the         initial appointment but also include all matters relating to         employment,  whether prior or subsequent to  the  employment         and also include promotion, (See The General Manager, South-         ern Railway v. Rangachari(1).         (1) [1962] 2 SCR 586 2--206SCI/77         780             Our attention was drawn to a  decision of  tiffs   Court         in Smt. Juthika Bhattacharya v. The State of Madhya  Pradesh         and Others(1) on behalf of the appellants, wherefrom it  was         pointed  out that Government could validly  impose  compara-         tively  stringent qualifications for posts in schools  taken         over  from  private management, since persons there  may  be         appointed  without the  requisite  experience  as needed  in         Government  schools.  That case is entirely  different  from         the  present case.  There may be no difficulty in  accepting         the position that Government can screen the teachers at  the         time of fresh appointment in Government service after taking         over  any institution from private management.   The  educa-         tional qualifications  and  teaching experience which may be         insisted  upon may be appropriately stringent having  regard         to  the  quality of education which Government  intends  to.         impart  in the college after taking over the same  from  the         private management.  If the quondam private employees in the         College  did not fulfil the qualifications,  experience  and         other  requisite  conditions, they may not be  eligible  for         appointment since Government may not undertake to take  over         all  the employees by maintaining the billabong of a  status         quo  ante. Such a position, if taken by the  Government,  is         consistent  with  implementation of a  correct   educational

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

       policy  and  will not incur the frown of Article 16  of  the         Constitution.   The question is entirely different when,  as         in  the present case, the Respondents answering the test  of         educational qualifications, as well as, experience of teach-         ing  in  a  recognised  private  college  are  discriminated         amongst  the very category of Readers on an  irrational  and         illusory consideration.  Denial of an opportunity to.  these         Respondents even for being considered for the post of Reader         is clearly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.             When  a fairly well-recognised institution, as  in  this         case, run for more than a century, is completely taken  over         by  the Government for management, it is not  merely  taking         over  the land and buildings, tables and chairs.  It has  to         tackle,  at the same time, a human problem, that is to  say,         the fate of the teachers and the staff serving that institu-         tion.  The  institution, with which we are   concerned,  was         taken  over, by consent, as a going educational concern  and         it  goes  without  saying that it must  be  administered  on         sound  lines  having  regard  ’to  quality,  efficiency  and         progress  in  all respects.  It is understandable  that  the         employees had to join the new service under the  Government,         for  the first time, and so could be, in that  sense,  fresh         entrants.   But to say that the teaching experience  of  the         Readers in the private institution is completely effaced  to         the extent that they will not be even eligible, on the  plea         of absence of teaching experience in Government service, for         consideration for appointment as Readers is a seriously grim         issue.  We feel assured that such an argument had  not  been         canvassed by the State in the High Court on the basis of the         Rules  of  July 19, 1971, since these Rules came into  force         after  the take over for which a separate circular  had  al-         ready  been  issued to take care of  the  special  exigency.         Action  under  the Government circular of  March  23,  1971,         alone,  was  in  controversy in the High  Court.   The  said         circular  took  recognition of the service  in  the  private         college in the  case of two         (1) [1976] 4 SCC 96.         781         Readers (Nos. 9 and 10 in Annexure 1).  The only differentia         was, therefore, the salary drawn by the Readers on the  date         of  take over. That action based on the salary aspect  under         the  said circular had to. stand the test of Article  16  in         the  High  Court,  as well as, before us.  the  argument  in         favour of  complete  erasion  of the  past  teaching   expe-         rience  in the private college, first time presented  before         us, fails to take note of the distinction between eligibili-         ty  and suitability. Eight years’ teaching experience  in  a         college  and the fulfilment  of other’ requisite  qualifica-         tions make a person eligible for  appointment .as a  Reader,         but  whether he is suitable for selection for the  post   is         an entirely different matter.         We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that all the  Respond-         ents  are  eligible to be referred to.  the  Public  Service         Commission  for  the post of Reader.  Their names  shall  be         referred to the Commission, accordingly.  Whether they  will         be  suitable  for appointment us Readers will  be  a  matter         entirely  for  due and proper consideration of  the   Public         Service Commission whose recommendations will be  considered         by  the Government in the matter of final  absorption.   The         High  Court  was right in allowing the .above claim  in  the         writ  applications. The appeals fail and are dismissed  with         costs.         M.R.                                   Appeals dismissed.         782

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8