Holding

Classification based on training is a valid, reasonable classification under Article 14, but the Supreme Court will not disturb the High Court’s order granting uniform pay scales due to the State’s acceptance of the Appellate Committee’s recommendation.

Summary

The State of Bihar appointed +2 lecturers, some of whom were untrained, and fixed separate pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers based on a Fitment Committee's recommendation. Untrained lecturers challenged this classification as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that the distinction was arbitrary and that the Fitment Appellate Committee’s recommendation of uniform pay scales should be implemented. The High Court single judge dismissed the petition, but the Division Bench set aside that order and directed the State to grant uniform pay scales. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that classification based on training is a valid and reasonable classification under Article 14, satisfying the intelligible differentia and rational nexus tests. However, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142, the Court declined to interfere with the Division Bench’s direction because the State had expressly accepted the Appellate Committee’s recommendation and had withdrawn the training requirement. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without setting aside the High Court’s order for uniform pay scales.

Issues considered

The classification of lecturers into trained and untrained for the purpose of fixing different pay scales violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee to grant uniform pay scales is binding on the State.
Whether the qualification criteria in the advertisement relate to eligibility only and can be ignored for pay scale determination.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 14, s. Article 142

Subjects

Article 14ClassificationEquality before lawPay scalesTrained vs untrained lecturersFitment CommitteeUniform payDiscretionary jurisdictionPublic service

Judgment

·- ,,... STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
V.
A

BIHAR STATE+2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS.

MAY 15, 2007

[C.K. THAKKERANDTARUNCHATIERJEE,JJ.] B

... ..
>
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 136 & 142-Appointment of
untrained lecturers in schools-State fixing higher pay scales for trained
lecturers and lower pay scales for untrained lecturers as per recommendation
by Fitment Committee-Writ Petition by untrained lecturers before High
c
Court challenging the classification on the basis of training-Fitment
Appellate Committee recommending uniform pay scales-High Court allowing
the Writ Petition-Correctness of-Held, classification based on training
does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution-However, on/acts, in exercise
of discretionary jurisdiction, uniform pay scales granted. D
Members of respondent-Association, who were qualified Post Graduate
~
but untrained, were appointed by appellants as lecturers in schools pursuant
to an advertisement at a particular pay-scale. A Fitment Committee appointed
r
by the State recommended different pay scales for trained and unstrained
lecturers, which was accepted by the State. The respondents filed a Writ E
Petition before High Court challenging the classification on the basis of
training. A Fitment Appellate Committee constituted to go into the anomalies
in the pay stales, submitted its report recommending payment of uniform pay
scales to trained and unstrained lecturers. The State, however, maintained
before the High Court that there is difference between trained and untrained
F
- y
T
lecturers and the difference in pay scales would not violate Article 14 of the
Constitution. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. In
appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the State to grant uniform
pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers.

In appeal to this Court, the appellant-State contended that trained and G
untrained lecturers from different class and such classification is rational
and reasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution; that fixation of different
pay scales cannot be said io be arbitrary or irrational; that the decision of the
-~-
Fitment Appellate Committee to grant uniform pay scales was not in

631 H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A consonance with law; that non-mention of the pay scales in the advertisement
cannot be a ground.to grant uniform pay scales to all the lecturers.

The respondent-Association contended that the classification based on
training is totally artificial, irrational and arbitrary; that the State expressly
stated that it will accept the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate
B Committee; that when the Committee recommended uniform pay scales, it is
not open for the State not to accept the Committee's recommendations; that
untrained teachers were performing similar functions; that after the report
of the Appellate Committee, the State withdraw the order sending untrained
lecturers for taking training and proceeded on the footing that there is no
I-
.(
-
c distinction between trained and untrained lecturers.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia guarantees equality
before the law and confers equal protection oflaws. It prohibits the State from
D denying persons or class of persons equal treatment, provided they are equals
and are similarly situated. It, however, does not forbid classification. In other
words, what Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classificati.1n if ~

otherwise such classification is legal, valid and reasonable. A legal and valid
classification may be based on educational qualifications. "'(
[Paras 11 and 17] [637-C-D[
E
1.2. Training is one of the most important factors for determining pay
scales. A distinction between trained and untrained lecturers for the purpose
of prescribing pay scales is valid and reasonable. Importance of training cannot
be ignored or under-estimated. [Para 25] [641-GI

F State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] SCR 284 (CB);
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [20061 8 ..., ....
SCC 399 (CB); Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [2007) l SCC ""!
732; State ofJammu & Kashmir v. Tri/oki Nath Khos/a & Ors., [1974) 1 SCC
19; Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521;
G U.P. State Sugar Corporation & Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh, (2006] 9 SCC 82 and
State of Orissa & Ors. v. Bairam Sahoo, [2000] 3 SCC 250, referred to

1.3. There is a clear distinction between a trained lecturer and an
untrained lecturer. Such a distinction is legal, valid, rational and reasonable. r
Trained lecturers and untrained lecturers can neither be said to be similarly
H
STATE OF BIHAR ,.. BI HAR ST ATE+2 LECTURERS ASSOCIAT!ONS 633
..... >.. circumstanced nor do they form one and he same class. The classification is A
reasonable and is based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes one
class (trained) included therein from the other class (untrained) which is left
out. Such classification or differentia has a rational nexus or reasonable
relation to the object intended to be achieved, viz. imparting education to
students. It, therefore, cannot be successfully contended that different pay
scales cannot be fixed for trained lecturers on one hand and untrained B
lecturers on the other hand. Prescribing different pay scales, under the
circumstances, cannot be held illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing
~

... Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para 3211643-H; 644-A, B, Cf
>-
Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education &
Ors., [1989) 1SCC392; Ram Sukh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1989)
c
Supp 2 SCC 189 and L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Ors., [200017
sec 618, referred to.
1.4. The educational qualification specified in the advertisement was
limited to eligibility of candidates to be appointed and it had nothing to do D
with fixing of pay scales. The approach of the Fitment Appellate Committee
was not in consonance with law. If there is distinction between trained and
.. 'f

y
untrained lecturers and if such classification is reasonable and rational, there
is nothing wrong in prescribing different pay scales for trained lecturers
and untrained lecturers and there was no reason for the Appellate Committee
to differ from the view taken by the Fitment Committee and by the State E
Government. The advertisement could be read as an eligibility criterion and
nothing more than that. By reading the advertisement in that manner, the
purpose could have been achieved by appointing and by retaining unstrained
lecturers in-service as also by fulfilling the object of fixing different pay
scales for trained and untrained lecturers. F
~ [Paras 33 and 40) [644-E; 646-C, DJ
T
r 1.5. However, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution oflndia, the appeal
is not allowed mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, when the Appellate
Fitment Committee was appointed by the State Government presided over by G
a sitting Judge of the High Court and the matter was referred as regards
... anomaly in pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers, the reference
expressly mentioned that the State Government will accept the recommendation
of the Committee and the Committee recommended payment of uniform pay
scales to trained as well as untrained teachers. Secondly, it was stated in the
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.

A counter affidavit filed by the untrained lecturers Association (writ petitioners)
that after the report of the Fitment Appellate Committee, the State Government
withdrew its earlier order for sending untrained lecturers (in-service
canllidates) for taking trai.ning on the ground that no such training was
mandatory in view of report of the Committee and when uniform pay-scales
B were to be given to trained as well as untrained lecturers.
[Paras 41, 42 and 4311646-F, G, H; 647-A, Bl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2519 of2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 323 of 2004.
.
.I.
c
Gopal Singh, Ankul Raj and Rituraj Biswas for the Appellants.

K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv., S.N. Pathak, Krishnanand Pandeya and S.K. Pandey
for the Respondents.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.

E
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated
M<Jich 22, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 2004. By the said order, the
~

.... -
Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Association of Untrained
Lecturers and set aside the order dated January 28, 2004 passed by a single
Judge of that Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7224of1999.

3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeal, few
F relevant facts may be noted:
"Y
4. Advertisement No. 1 of 1987 was issued by the appellants, inviting
applications for appointment of +2 Lecturers in Secondary Schools in the pay
,
scales ofRs.940-1660 in Government Schools as well as in Nationalized Schools.
The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement for the post was Post-
G
Graduate Degree in II Class. ·There was no requirement of having training for
appointment to the said post. In 1989, Members of the Respondent-Association
who had Post-Graduate Degree in II Class but who were untrained, were
selected and appointed as Lecturers in Nationalized Schools in the pay scales
ofRs.940-1660. After Vth Pay Commission, pay scales ofRs.940-1660 were
H
STATE OF BI HAR v. BI HAR STATE+2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKERJ] 63 5

revised to Rs.1640-2900 with effect from January \, 1996. It appears that A
initially, there was difference in pay scales of +2 Lecturers serving in
Government Schools and serving in Nationalized Schools other than
Government Schools. After a decision of the High Court in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 2445 of 1994. all +2 Lecturers were granted uniform pay
scales irrespective of their posting. The controversy raised in the present B
matter relates to difference of pay scales between lecturers who are trained
and lecturers who are untrained. A Fitment Committee was appointed by the

- >-
Government to consider the pay scales of trained and untrained lecturers.
The Fitment Committee considered the question and recommended different
pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers. The State Government accepted
the recommendation of the Fitment Committee and fixed pay scales ofRs.5000- C
8000 for untrained lecturers and Rs.6500-10500 for trained lecturers. Government
Resolution was passed on February 8, 1999 and a notification was issued on
June 10, 1999.

5. There was resentment amongst the employees against fixation of two
different pay scales of +2 Lecturers on the basis of training. A writ petition D
was, therefore, filed by the Association challenging classification made on the
basis of training. A Fitment Appellate Committee was, therefore, constituted
- by the State Government presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court
by an order dated January 15, 2000 to go into the anomalies in pay scales of
trained lecturers and untrained lecturers. The Fitrnent Appellate Committee E
submitted its report, recommending payment of uniform pay scales to trained
as well as untrained lecturers observing that different pay scales to trained
and untrained lecturers would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The State
Government, however, maintained that there is difference between trained
lecturers and untrained lecturers and difference in pay scales would not
violate Article 14 of the Constitution. F
6. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition upheld the
contention of the State Government and dismissed the petition filed by the
Association holding that in making distinction between trained lecturers and
untrained lecturers and in fixing different pay scales, State Government had
not violated any provision of the Constitution and the petition was liable to G
be dismissed. The Division Bench, however, as observed earlier, allowed the
appeal, set aside the order passed by the single Judge and directed the State
Authorities to grant uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers.
The order passed by the Division Bench is challenged by the State Authorities
in the present Appeal by Special Leave. H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A 7. On January 6, 2005. notice was issued by this Court and the party- ...¢..._
respondents were directed to file affidavit-in-reply. Counter-affidavit as also
affidavit-in-rejoinder were thereafter filed. The Court directed the Registry to
place the matter for final disposal and that is how the matter is before us. We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.

B 8. The learned counsel for the State contended that the Division Bench
of the High Court was wholly wrong in holding that there can be no difference

-
between trained lecturers and untrained lecturers and that difference in pay
scales would be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It was submitted that trained and untrained lecturers form
C different class and such classification is rational and reasonable. Fixation of
different pay scales, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. It
Was also submitted that though the Fitment Appellate Committee recommended
payment of uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers, the said
decision was not in consonance with law. It was submitted that the learned
single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition and the Division Bench
D ought to have confirmed that order. Regarding advertisement issued by the
Authorities for making appointment of+2 Lecturers and non-mention about
training, it was submitted that it related to eligibility for appointment and had
nothing to do with pay scales. The Appellate Committee was, therefore,
wrong in relying on the said fact and in recommending uniform pay scales
E to all lecturers. It was, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the
Division Bench may be set aside by restoring the order of the single Judge.

9. The learned counsel for the Association, on the other hand, supported
the order passed by the Division Bench. He submitted that classification
sought to be made on the basis of training is totally artificial, irrational and
F arbitrary. Untrained lecturers cannot be deprived of legitimate pay scales to
which their counterparts (trained lecturers) were held entitled. It was because
of the legitimate grievance by untrained lecturers that a Fitrnent Appellate
Committee presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court was constituted
by the State Government. In terms of reference, it was expressly stated that
the State Government will accept the recommendation of the Committee and
G · when the said Committee recommended to grant uniform pay scales to trained
and untrained lecturers, it was not open to the State Government not to
accept and implement the said recommendation. The learned single Judge
was not right in dismissing the petition filed by the Association of untrained
lecturers. It was further submitted that untrained lecturers were performing
H similar functions and discharging similar duties. Moreover, after the report
STATE OF BIHARl'. BIHARSTATE+2 LECTIJRERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKER,J.] 637

of the Appellate Committee, the State Government withdrew the order sending A
untrained lecturers for taking training on the ground that no such training was
necessary in view of the report submitted and recommendation made by the
Committee and payment of uniform pay scales to trained and untrained
lecturers. It was, therefore, submitted that even State Authorities have also
proceeded on the footing that there is no distinction between trained and B
untrained lecturers so far as pay scales are concerned. The Division Bench
was, therefore, right in allowing the appeal and no grievance can be made
against the directions issued by the Court.

10. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties. in our opinion,
the Division Bench was not right in holding that distinction between trained C
lecturers and untrained lecturers is arbitrary, irrational or otherwise
objectionable.

11. Now, it is well settled and cannot be disputed that Article 14 of the
Constitution guarantees equality before the law and confers equal protection
of laws. It prohibits the State from denying persons or class of persons equal D
treatment; provided they are equals and are similarly situated. It, however,
does not forbid classification. In other words, what Article 14 prohibits is
• discrimination and not classification if otherwise such classification is legal,
valid and reasonable.

12. Before more than halfa century, a Constitution Bench of this Court E
was called upon to consider ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution
in a celebrated decision in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952]
SCR 284. There, constitutional validity of certain provisions of the West
Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 was challenged on the ground that they were
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. F
13. Dealing with the contention, S.R. Das, J. (as his Lordship then was)
made the following instructive observations which were cited with approval
in several subsequent cases;

"It is now well established that while Article 14 is designed to prevent G
a person or class of persons from being singled out from others
similarly situated for the purpose of being specially subjected to
discriminating and hostile legislation, it does not insist on an 'abstract
\ symmetry' in the sense that every piece of legislation must have
universal application. All persons are not, by nature, attainment or
circumstances, equal and the varying needs of different classes of H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A persons often require separate treatment and, therefore, the protecting
clause has been construed as a guarantee against discrimination
amongst equals only and not as taking away from the State the power
to classify persons for the purpose of legislation. This classification
may be on different bases. It may be geographical or according to
objects or occupations or the like. Mere classification. however. is
B not enough to get over the inhibition of the article. The classification
mu$t not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not
only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be
found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are
left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable
c relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that
are grouped together from others, and (2 that that differentia must
have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
Act. The differentia which !s the basis of the classification and the
-
D object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that·
there must be a nexus between them. In short, while the article
forbids class legislation in the sense of making improper
discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon
persons arbitrari(y selected out of a large number of other persons
E similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be conferred
or the liability proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid
classification for the purpose of legislation, provided such

-
classification is not arbitrary in the sense I have just explained. "

(emphasis supplied)
F
14. Recently, in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., [2006) 8 SCC 399, it was contended by the petitioners that the ,.
classification between in-service and retired employees was invalid, illegal ,.
and unreasonable. Likewise, differentiation between defence personnel and
civil personnel was arbitr&ry and irrational. The contention was, however,
G rejected by this Court holding that they form different class and Article 14
of the Constitution could not be said to have been violated.

15. Again, in Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [2007] I SCC

H
732, it was argued that classification between Government employees and
employees of Companies, Corporations and other Public Sector Undertakings
-
STATE OF BIHAR "· BIHARSTATE+2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKER, J.] 639

which can be said to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the A
Constitution would be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious. But argument was
negatived by this Court observing that distinction between employees of
Central Government and State Governments (Civil Servants) on the one hand
and other employees i.e. employees of Companies, Corporations or other
Public Sector Undertakings on the other hand. is well founded and well B
defined.

16. In Confederation of Ex-Servicemen, after considering leading cases
on equal protection clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, speaking
i for a five-Judge Bench, one of us (C.K. Thakker. J.) stated:
>
"In our judgment, therefore, it is clear that every classification to be C
legal, valid and permissible, must fulfil the twin test, namely,

(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia
which must distinguish persons or things that are grouped together
from others leaving out or left out; and
D
(ii) such a differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought
to be achieved by the statute or legislation in question."

17. A legal and valid classification may be based on educational
qualifications.
E
18. In State of Mysore & Anr. v. P. Narsinga Rao, [1968] 1SCR407:
AIR (I 968) SC 349, different pay scales were prescribed for tracers; one for
matriculate tracers which was higher than the other for non-matriculate tracers
which was lower. The action was held legal, lawful and not violative of Article
14 or 16 of the Constitution.
F
19. The Constitution Bench of this Court stated:-
,..
r " .... It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it
does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.
When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the
ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if G
two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on
which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out
of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there
must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and
the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. "

(emphasis supplied)

B 20. In State ofJammu & Kashimir v. Triloki Nath Khos/a & Ors., (1974]
I SCC 19, this Court upheld the classification for promotion on the basis of
academic and technical qualifications. It was contended on behalf of the
diploma-holders that classification sought to be made by the State between
'degree-holders' and 'diploma-holders', was illegal and artificial and denial of
C promotion to diploma-holders while granting such benefit to degree-holders
had violated Article 14 of the Constitution. But the argument was negatived.

21. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated:

"On the facts of the case, classification on the basis of educational
qualifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency
D cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstance and one has
always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in
order to judge the validity of a classification. The provision in the
1939 Rules restricting direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers to
Engineering graduates, the dearth of graduates in times past and their
E copious flow in times present are all matters which can legitimately
enter the judgment of the rule-making authority. In the light of these
facts, that judgment cannot be assailed as capricious or fanciful.
-
F
Efficiency which comes in the trail of higher mental equipment can
reasonably be attempted to be achieved by restricting promotional
opportunities to these possessing higher educational qualifications.
And we are concerned with the reasonableness of the classification,
not with the precise accuracy of the decision to classify nor with the
-
question whether the classification is scientific. Such tests have long
since been discarded. In fact, American decisions have gone as far
as saying that classification would offend against the 14th Amendment
of the American Constitution only ifit is "purely arbitrary, oppressive
G
or capricious" and the inequality produced in order to encounter the
challenge of the Constitution must be "actually and palpably
unreasonably and arbitrary". We need not go that far as the differences
between the two classes graduates and diploma-holders furnish a
reasonable basis for separate treatment and bear a just relation to the
H
STATE OF BIHAR v. BI HAR STATE +2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKER, J.l 641

purpose of the impugned provision." A
(emphasis supplied)

22. In Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1994] 2 SCC
521, different pay scales were prescribed for Pharmacists on the consideration
of qualifications and experience. Whereas higher pay scales were fixed for B
qualified Pharmacists, unqualified Pharmacists were paid lower pay scales. It
was ruled that it was open to the Government to prescribe different pay scales
for different categories of Pharmacists on the basis of qualifications and
experience. The Court held that doctrine of· equal pay for equal work' should
not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner.
c
23. In U.P. State Sugar Corporation & Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh, [2006]
9 SCC 82, this Court held that educational qualification can be a criterion for
differentiation in pay scales. Possession of higher qualification can be treated
a valid base for classification of two categories of employees, even if no such
requirement is prescribed at the time of recruitment. If such a distinction is D
drawn, no complaint can be made that it would violate Article 14 of the
Constitution or would be contrary to Article 39(d) of the Constitution.

24. It is true that· equal pay for equal work' is a doctrine well established
in service jurisprudence and is also a concomitant of Article 14 of the
~-
Constitution. But as observed by this Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. E
Bairam Sahoo, [2000] 3 SCC 250, equal pay would depend upon not only on
the nature or volume of work but also on quality of work as regards reliability
and responsibility as we II and different pay scales may be prescribed on the
basis of such reliability and responsibility.

25. It was contended on behalf of untrained lecturers Association before F
the High Court as well as before us that trained lecturers and untrained
"t lecturers were performing similar functions and discharging similar duties. It
.,...- was, therefore, not open to the State Authorities to pay different pay scales
to them. The learned single Judge negatived the contention observing and,
in our opinion, rightly, that training was one of the most important factors for G
determining pay scales. A distinction between trained and untrained lecturers
for the purpose of prescribing pay scales is, therefore, valid and reasonable.
Importance of training, in our judgment, cannot be ignored or under-estimated.
Unfortunately, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned
single Judge upholding the argument of untrained lecturers Association and
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A by granting them pay scales prescribed for trained lecturers.
26. Now, let us consider few decisions of this Court on the need and
necessity of training.

27. In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School
B Education & Ors., [1989] I sec 392, this Court emphasized the need and
importance of trained teachers in schools. Speaking for the Court, Jagannatha
Shetty, J., made the following illuminating observations:

"Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more.
Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of
c teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher
alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students.
He is the 'engine' of the educational system. He is a principal
instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be
endowed and energized with needed potential to deliver enlightened
service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire
D
and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast
of everchanging conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and
unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and
attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His
involvement in national integration is more important, indeed
E indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should
be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It
has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-trained or sub-
standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system;
if not a punishment on our children. The government and the
University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the
F training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous
consideration. "

(Emphasis supplied) ~

28. In Ram Sukh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1989] Supp 2
G SCC 189, untrained teachers were removed from service on the availability
of trained teacbers. The action was challenged on the ground that the
petitioners were also teachers and their services could not be terminated only
on the ground that trained teachers were available. It was also urged that
even if such training is necessary, untrained teachers should be given an 'Ji
H opportunity to undergo such training. This Court, however, rejected the
STATE OF BIHAR v. BIHAR STATE +2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKER, J] 643

contention, observing that a Court of Law cannot direct the Government to A
continue untrained teachers in service till they are trained.

29. Referring to Andhra Kesari Educational Society, the Court stated:

"These observations are equally relevant to primary school teachers
with whom we are concerned. The primary school teachers are of B
utmost importance in developing a child's personality in the formative
years. It is not just enough to teach the child alphabets and figures,
but must more is required to understand child psychology and
aptitudes. They need a different approach altogether. Only trained
teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never
be proper substitute to trained teachers. We are, therefore, unable C
to give any relief to the petitioners. "

(emphasis supplied)

30. In L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State ofT.N. & Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 618,
this Court stated that mere passing of a public examination is not enough. It D
must be coupled with proper training in a recognized educational institution.

31. Quoting with approval observations from earlier cases, this Court
said;

" ..... We are of the considered opinion that before teachers are allowed E
to teach innocent children, they must receive appropriate and adequate
training in a recognized training institute satisfying the prescribed
norms, otherwise the standard of education and careers of children
will be jeopardised. In most civilized and advanced countries, the job
of a teacher in a primary school is considered an important and crucial F
one because moulding of young mincjs begins in primary schools.
Allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognized or
unrecognized institutes or licensing them to teach children of an
impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed, will be detrimental
to the interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of
building a great nation, teachers and educational institutions also G
play a vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals cannot
be placed above or preferred to the larger public interest. "

(Emphasis supplied)

' 32. In our judgment, the law appears to be well settled. There is a clear H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200~) 6 S. C.R.

A distinction betwee11 a trained teacher (lecturer) and an untrained teacher
(lecturer). Such a distinction is legal, valid, rational and reasonable. Trained
lecturers and untrained lecturers, therefore, can neither be said to be similarly
-
circumstanced nor they form one and the same class. The classification is
reasonable and is based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes one
B class (trained) included therein from the other class (untrained) which is left
out. Such classification or differentia has a rational nexus or reasonable
relation to the object intended to be achieved, viz., imparting education to
students. It, therefore, cannot be successfully contended that different pay
scales cannot be fixed for trained lecturers on one hand and untrained lecturers
on the other hand. Prescribing different pay scales, under the circumstances,
C cannot be held illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing Article 14 of the
Constitution.

33. It was also argued both before the single Judge and also before the
Division Bench of the High Court that the Appellate Fitment Committee
recommended uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers. The
D submission was based on the ground that when advertisement for appointment
of+2 Lecturers was issued, only requirement insisted upon was that a candidate
must have Post-Graduate Degree in Class II. There was no reference as to
training by the candidates. The learned single Judge held that the requirement
mentioned in the advertisement related to 'eligibility' and it had no relevance
E to pay scales. The Division Bench, however, was of the opinion that in
absence of anything regarding training by candidates, no different pay scales
could be provided by the Authorities. To us, learned single Judge was wholly
right in holding that the educational qualification specified in the advertisement
was limited to eligibility of candidates to be appointed and it had nothing to
do with fixing of pay scales.
F
34. It was also urged before the High Court that an Expert Committee
was appointed by the State Government which had taken a decision and
normally such a decision is not interfered with either by the Executive or by
the Judiciary.

G 35. So far as the principle is concerned, there can be no two opinions
about it. In the instant case, however, the Division Bench was wrong in
invoking the said doctrine for granting uniform pay scales to trained and
untrained lecturers. We have already noted that a Fitrnent Committee was
-
appointed by the State Government which was an 'Expert Committee'. That

H
Committee made clear distinction between trained lecturers and untrained
-
STATE OF BIHAR v. BIHAR STATE+2 LECTIJRERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKER, J] 645

lecturers. A
36. The Fitment Committee, in its report stated;

"We recommend that for Trained Graduate Teachers the system that
is available in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan or in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi Administration should be followed. The B
system of giving promotions based on higher educational qualification
has to be stopped and the pattern in the Centre whereby direct
recruitment is done both at the level of Trained Graduate and Post
Graduate Trained Teachers will have to be adopted. The Bihar Taken
over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 which has
come in force from 1.1.1986 requires to be amended and brought in line C
with what is prevailing in the Centre. In the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan according to an order dated 29.4.97 promotion quota from
PRT to TGT and TGT to PGT has been increased from 33.3% to 50%.
This system or the pattern in the Delhi Administration has to be
adopted in Bihar if Central scales are to become applicable." D
37. The Fitment Appellate Committee agreed with the.above observations
..,.. and observed;

"This Committee agrees with the views of the Fitment Committee.
There is enough deterioration in education standards in this State.
No further downslide in be tolerated." E

38. The Appellate Committee, however, strongly relied upon one and
only one circumstance that since in the advertisement nothing was mentioned
about training, different pay scales could not be prescribed by the State for
trained and untrained lecturers.
F
39. In paragraph 31.49, the Appellate Committee stated:-

"The Fitment Committee's mandate was to establish equivalence with
Central posts and recommend scales accordingly. In the case of post-
graduate +2 Lecturers a clear equivalence was available with the post G
of post graduate teachers in the Central Schools. Therefore, this is
a case where there can be very little doubt about the exacters of the
equivalence. The argument that in Delhi they also teach IX and X
standard is very tenuous. Moreover, if training is necessary for such
teachers in Delhi which by all standards has a better academic record
than their counterpart in Bihar- then it is all the more necessary for H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A teachers in Bihar. The Fitment Committee has gone by Central
equivalence were the scale of Rs.6500-10500 is provided to trained
teachers only. The Committee. therefore, could not have recommended
this scale for untrained teachers. Howf!Ver, this Committee feels that
the ground that the original advertisement did not require "training"
as an essential qualification is very' relevant because imposition of
B such conditions on a later date is clearly discriminatory• and the
present incumbents cannot be denied the higher scale of Rs.6500-
10500, f!Ven if they are untrained. "

(emphasis supplied) r f
......
C 40. We are afraid the approach of the Fitrnent Appellate Committee was
not in consonance with law. If there is distinction between trained and
untrained lecturers and if such classification is reasonable and rational, there
is nothing wrong in prescribing different pay scales for trained lecturers and
untrained lecturers and there was no reason for the Appellate Committee to
D differ from the view taken by the Fitrnent Committee and by the State
Government. The advertisement could be read, as ruled by a single Judge as
an eligibility criterion and nothing more than that. By reading the advertisement
in that tnanner, the purpose could have been achieved by appointing and by
retaining untrained lecturers in-service as also by fulfilling the object of fixing
different pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers. Unfortunately, the
E Division Bench failed to reconcile the advertisement and fixation of pay scales
by properly appreciating the views expressed by the Fitment Committee and
accepted by the State Government.

4 I. The above discussion would normally result into the appeal being
allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench and by
-
F restoring the order of the learned single Judge upholding the action of the
State Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we
are not persuaded to set aside the order of the Division Bench in exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 read with Article 142
of the Constitution mainly because of two reasons;
G
42. Firstly, when the Appellate Fitrnent Committee was appointed by the
State Government presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court of Patna
and the matter was referred as regards anomaly in pay scales to trained and
-
untrained lecturers, the reference expressly mentioned that the State
Government will accept the recommendation of the Committee and the Committee
H recommended payment of uniform pay scales to trained as well as untrained -
STATE OF BIHAR v. BIHAR STATE+2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS [THAKKER, J.] 647

<..
.}.._ teachers . A
43. Secondly, it was stated in the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the untrained
lecturers Association (writ petitioners) that after the report of the Fitment
Appellate Committee, the State Government on January 22, 200 I withdrew its
earlier order dated October 19, 2000 for sending untrained lecturers (in-service
candidates) for taking training on the ground that no such training was B
mandatory in view of report of the Committee and when uniform pay-scales
were to be given to trained as well as untrained lecturers.
"'
-./ 44. For the reasons aforesaid, though we are firmly of the view that the
..._
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna was not right in
holding that there is no distinction between trained lecturers on the one hand c
and untrained lecturers on the other hand and no different pay scales can be
prescribed for trained and untrained lecturers and such fixation of pay scales
would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and though we hold that the
learned single Judge was right in upholding the classification between trained
and untrained lecturers as rational, reasonable and intelligible, in the facts and
D
circumstances of the case, we do not intend to interfere with the final direction
~
issued by the Division Bench in the light of two circumstances referred to
above. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances
~
of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

B.S. Appeal disposed of.