Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgement passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondents, the present appeal by special leave has been filed.
Brief Facts:
The statute, “State Universities Act, 1973” was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand. Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 deals with the post of Registrar, who shall be a whole-time officer of the University. The Uttarakhand State University (Centralized Services) Rules, 2006 provide the qualification for a Lecturer. On 31.12.2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi published two separate communications addressed to the Secretary, UGC on the revision of the pay scale of the Lecturers on one side and the Administrative Staff starting from the Registrar on the other. In other words, they became mere recommendations qua the State Government Universities. The State of Uttarakhand thought it fit to accept the recommended revised pay scale of the Government of India, meant to be applied for the Central Universities and Central Government Colleges, to its teaching faculties alone, except sub-clause (f) in clause 8, which speaks of age of superannuation, an issue with which we are not concerned in the present lis. Respondent No. 1 was selected and given the appointment to the post of Registrar. After taking charge as an Assistant Registrar in Kumaon University, Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking the pay scale meant to be applied for his counterparts in the Central Universities.
HC’s Decision:
The High Court allowed the writ petition on a factual error by misconstruing the decision made in favour of the teaching faculty to that of the Registrar and other administrative staff. The Appellant seeks to set aside the said decision before SC.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has completely misunderstood the admitted facts. There are two circulars dealing with the Lecturers and the Registrars. A decision was made to revise the pay scales of the UGC for the Lecturers and not for the Registrars. One has to see the economic implication. It was submitted that Respondent No. 1 has got neither any accrued nor vested right to seek pay parity. Such a parity cannot be sought by comparing the Lecturers and the other Registrars working in the Central Universities.
It was argued that there is no mandatory compliance of the Central Government’s revised pay scale implementation for the State Universities. Mainly because Respondent No. 1 was made to undertake the work assigned to a Lecturer and vice versa, the aforesaid arrangement being temporary will not create a right.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that Respondent No. 1, did function as a Lecturer albeit for a limited period, the pay scale fixed was very low. Having revised the pay scale for the Lecturers, nothing prevented the Appellant from undertaking the said exercise for the Registrars as well. Thus, the benefit conferred need not be disturbed.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as an “anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution”. When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one.
SC stated that such a discrimination would not be termed as arbitrary as the object of the classification itself is meant for providing benefits to an identified group of persons who form a class of their own. When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied.
SC stated that if the right to equality is to be termed as a genus, a right to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When two identified groups are not equal, certainly they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. SC stated that as long as the classification does not smack of inherent arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may not be any reason to interfere with it.
SC stated that Law has become quite settled that the Appellant is not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government which would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central Government Colleges receiving funds. The High Court of Uttarakhand has completely misconstrued the facts. The Appellant nowhere has made a decision to accept and adopt the circular of the Central Government pertaining to the Registrars working in the Universities coming under its purview. In the absence of any legal right with the corresponding duty, such a relief can never be asked for, particularly when there are clear and specific rules provided for the pay scale of Registrars by the Appellant itself.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “merely because Respondent No. 1 was made to fill the gap by temporarily taking up the job of a Lecturer, he would never become one and so also a Lecturer, who might undertake the job of a Registrar. This is nothing but an administrative convenience borne out of a contingency. When the classification is distinct and clear having adequate rationale with due relation to the objective, there is no reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the Lecturers.”
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti & Ors.
Bench: M. M. Sundresh, J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul J.)
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2661 OF 2015
Decided on: 7th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
