The Supreme Court has held that directions issued by Central Government are not binding on State Universities and merely acts as recommendatory for them.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh in that view rejected demand of Registrar of a State University claiming higher pay scale based on a circular issued by the Central Government.
Brief Facts of the Case
In the appeal filed herein, the State Govt has assailed the Uttrakhand High Court order allowing the writ petition of the respondent-Registrar and directing Education Department to take a decision considering it.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that here are two circulars dealing with the Lecturers and the Registrars. He averred that decision was made to revise the pay scales of the UGC for the Lecturers and not for the Registrars.
Submmiting that the respondent-Registrar has got neither any accrued nor vested right to seek pay parity, the Court noted that such a parity cannot be sought by comparing the Lecturers and the other Registrars working in the Central Universities as there is no mandatory compliance of the Central Government’s revised pay scale implementation for the State Universities.
The matter involved partakes the character of a policy decision made upon considering the available material, including the economic fallout and therefore, no judicial review is available, he asserted.
He further contended that mainly because Respondent- Registrar was made to undertake the work assigned to a Lecturer and vice versa, the arrangement being temporary will not create a right.
Supreme Court's Analysis
In review to Classification Test and Policy Decisions of the State, the Court noted that a 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, the Court noted.
"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. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group. Thus, a valid classification is nothing but a valid discrimination. That being the position, there can never be an injury to the concept of equality enshrined under the Constitution, not being an inflexible doctrine."
It added that Courts could act like Appellate Authorities especially when a classification is introduced by way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials.
The Court went on to comment on Right to Equality and stated that if it 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. A reasonable classification thus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined under Article 14 when there exists an intelligible differentia between two groups having a rational relation to the object. Therefore, an interference would only be called for on the court being convinced that the classification causes inequality among similarly placed persons. The role of the court being restrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concerned authorities. When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided."
As long as the classification doesn't smack of inherent arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may not be any reason to interfere with it, the Court said.
"It is the wisdom of the other wings which is required to be respected except when a classification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificial difference and itself being discriminatory. A decision made sans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either a suspicious or a microscopic eye. Good-faith and intention are to be presumed unless the contrary exists. One has to keep in mind that the role of the court is on the illegality involved as against the governance."
The Court then refrred to Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. Vs Mumbai Port Trust & ANR., 2010 Latest Caselaw 852 SC, Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India, 1994 Latest Caselaw 98 SC, Union of India & ANR Vs. International Trading Company & ANR, 2003 Latest Caselaw 201 SC, Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2000 Latest Caselaw 513 SC, Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2011 Latest Caselaw 541 SC, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 2006 Latest Caselaw 813 SC
Referring to Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors., 2015 Latest Caselaw 186 SC, the Court noted 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. Thus, any such decision would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation.
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand Versus Sudhir Budakoti & Ors
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2661 OF 2015; April 07, 2022
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
