Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusRAMESH CHANDRA BAJPAI
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 956
- Decided
- 28 July 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
Article 14’s equality clause mandates wholesale identity between the two classes of employees; since Physical Training Instructors and teachers are governed by different recruitment rules, qualifications and pay structures, the claim for parity of pay is untenable.
Summary
The respondent, a Physical Training Instructor in a Government Ayurvedic College, claimed that his pay should be fixed at the UGC scale granted to teachers in the School Education Department. The High Court had ordered his pay to be fixed in that scale, relying on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the recruitment rules governing Physical Training Instructors (Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy) Class III Ministerial Services Recruitment Rules, 1987) and those governing teachers (Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990) and found them to be distinct in class, qualifications and pay structures. The Court held that Article 14’s equality clause applies only when the two groups are wholesale identical, which was not the case here, and that the High Court’s reliance on P.S. Ramamohana Rao was misplaced. Consequently, the respondent could not claim parity of pay, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether a Physical Training Instructor in a Government Ayurvedic College is entitled to parity of pay with teachers who receive the UGC scale of pay.
- Whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 can be invoked when the posts are governed by different recruitment rules and qualifications.
- Whether the High Court’s reliance on P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University is applicable to the present case.
- Whether the extension of UGC pay scale to other Physical Training Instructors can be used to claim the same benefit for the respondent.
- Whether the Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy) Class III Ministerial Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 and the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 create a sufficient distinction to deny equal‑pay claim.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 39(d)
Subjects
equal pay for equal workArticle 14pay parityrecruitment rulesPhysical Training InstructorUGC pay scaleservice lawdoctrine of equalityMadhya PradeshAyurvedic College
Judgment
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 23
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. A
. _), v.
RAMESH CHANDRA BAJPAI
(Civil Appeal No. 5058 of 2009)
- JULY 28, 2009
[S.B. SINHA, G.S. SINGHVI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
B
Service Law - Pay scale - Claim by Physical Training
Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College - For parity of pay
with teachers who had been granted UGC scale of pay- Held: c
The claim was not tenable - Equality clause could not .be
invoked as there was no wholesale identity between holders
of the two posts - Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of
Medicine and Homeopathy) Class Ill Ministerial Services
Recruitment RulE;s, 1987 - Madhya Pradesh Educational D
Service (Collegiate Br@nch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 -
- )c
. Doctrines - Doctrine of "Equal pay for Equal work" -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
Judgment/Order - Interpretation of - Held: A decision is
.an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
E
deduced therefrom.
Respondent was working as a Physical Training
Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College. He claimed
parity of pay with teachers employed in the School F
Education Department who had been granted UGC scale
of pay. The High Court passed order directing that the
pay of Respondent be fixed in the scale prescribed for
the post of teachers. Hence the present appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
-f HELD: 1.1. The Ayurvedic Colleges situated in the
State of Madhya Pradesh are under the control of the
Department of Medical Education. The recruitment to the
23 H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A post of Physical Training Instructor is regulated by the
Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of Medicine and
Homeopathy) Class Ill Ministerial Services Recruitment
Rules, 1987. In terms of rules 5, 6 and 8 read with the
relevant entries of Schedules I, II and Ill of the 1987 Rules,
B the post of Physical Training Instructor is categorized as
Class Ill Non-Ministerial under the heading 'Establishment
of Divisional Organization' and the same is required to be
filled 100 per cent by direct recruitment from amongst the
persons possessing the requisite educational
.•
c qualification of Diploma in Physical Training. [Para 9) (30-
C-E]
1.2. A comparison of the provisions of the 1987 Rules
and the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate
Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 clearly establish that
D they not only dea~ with diffe,r~nt classes of employees but
the educational qualifications and scales of pay
prescribed for the posts enumerated in Schedules of two
sets of Rules are entirely different. While the 1987 Rules
regulate recruitment to Class Ill Ministerial and Non-
-
E Ministerial posts in various colleges imparting education
in Indian System of Medicine including Ayurveda, the
1990 rules regulate recruitment to different posts in the
Educational Service (Collegiate Branch). The post of
'teacher' does not find place either in the 1987 Rules or
F in the 1990 Rules. [Paras 11 and 12) [31-A-C]
2.1. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be
invoked only when the employees are similarly situated.
Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work
is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales.
G The Court has to consider the factors like the source and
mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the
nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities,
reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc.
In other words, the equality clause can be Invoked in the
H matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 25
CHANDRA BAJPAI
betwllen the hofdets of two posts. [Para 14] [31-G-H; 32- A
~
-1.. A-B]
2.2. Article 14 of the Constitution carries with it a
- positive concept of equality. That Article cannot be
Invoked for perpetuating illegality. To put it differently, an
illegal or wrong order passed in one case cannot be
B
made the basis for compelling a public authority to pass
similar order in other cases. Even if the State implements
an erroneous order passed by the court, it cannot be
precluded from challenging similar order passed in
another case, simply because appeal was not preferred
c
in the earlier case. [Para 17] [33-A-C]
2.3. The respondent cannot derive any benefit from
the fact that in compliance of the orders passed by the
Tribunal and High Court, the State Government extended D
the benefit of UGC scale of pay to some of the Physical
'>. Training Instructors of Ayurvedic and other colleges. The
'
~
illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by invoking
the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. [Para 20] [34-F-
H] E
Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun Kumar Roy 2004
(1) SCC 347]; State of Jharkhand and others v. Manshu
Kumbhkar 2007 (8) SCC 249; Vice-Chancellor, M.D.
University, Rohtak v. Jahan Singh 2007 (5) SCC 77 and Bihar
F
Public Service Commission and others v. Kamini and others
2007 (8) sec 519, referred to.
3. A decision is an authority for what it decides and
not what can logically be deduced therefrom. In P.S.
Ramamohana Rao, this Court, having regard to the nature G
of duties and functions of Physical Director in Andhra
i·
Pradesh Agricultural University, held that that post came
within the definition of teacher. The proposition laid down
in that case could not be automatically extended to other
cases like· the present one, where employees are H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A governed by different sets of rules. [Para 23} [36-G-H; 37-
~ ~-
P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University
B
and another 1997 (8) sec 350, distinguished.
Case Law Reference:
[1997 (8) sec 3501 distinguished Para 6
-
c2004 (1l sec 3411 referred to Para 15
c c2001 (8) sec 2491 referred to Para 18
c2001 (5) sec 111 referred to Para 19
c2001 (8) sec 5191 referred to Para 19
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5058 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.1.2008 of the High ~
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.A. No. 201 of
2006.
E
S.K. Dubey, Vikrant Singh Bais, B.S. Banthia, Yogesh
Tiwari for the Appellants.
Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev for the
F Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.8. SINHA, J. 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is before
us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
G dated 4.1.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal
No.201 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred
by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated
3.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High
H Court in Writ Petition No.4005/2003, was dismissed.
-1
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 27
CHANDRA BAJPAI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
2. The core question which arises for consideration before A
>
"' us is as to whether the respondent herein who is working as
Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College
is entitled to claim parity of pay with the teachers who have
been granted UGC scale of pay.
B
3. The respondent was appointed as Physical Training
Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College, Ujjain b·y an offer
of appointment dated 18.1.1973. He filed O.A. No. 907 of 1998
before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore
• Bench (for short, "the Tribunal") with the prayer that the non-
applicants in the O.A. (the petitioners herein) be directed to
c
treat him as teacher and fix his pay in the pay scale prescribed
for that post along with the benefit of senior scale and also give
'> him the UGC pay scale (Rs.3,700-5,700) w.e.f.1.1.1986.
~
1 In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the non-applicants, D
'
it was pleaded that UGC scales have not been made applicable
•
...., ) so far as the staff of AyuNedic Colleges are concerned and that
there was no sanctioned post of Sports Officer in the college
for which the pay scale of Rs.3,700-5,700 was recommended
and in that view of the matter the applicant could not have been E
treated at par with the teachers who are employed in the School
Education Department.
~
4. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the respondent
.... observing that the applicant having not been holding the post
F
of Sports Officer and having not been working in the
Government College administered by the Department of Higher
Education, he was not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal also
held that Physical Training Instructors cannot be treated at par
with the teachers because the Government has not issued any
G
order equating the said two posts.
·i-
Soon thereafter, the respondent filed an application (M.A.
No.277/1998) for review of the order dated 16.9.1998 vide
which the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A.
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A 5. During the pendency of that application, lhf:3 Tribunal was
abolished and all the pending matters were transferred to the
High Court. The respondent's case was then registered as Writ
Petition No.4005/2003.
B 6. A learned single judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition .relying upon the judgment of this Court in P.S.
Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and
another [1997 (8) sec 350] and the order passed in Writ
Petition No. 5438 of 2000 directing that the pay of the writ ...
petitioner be fixed in the scale prescribed for the post of
c teacher.
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal preferred
by the petitioners primarily on the ground that a large number
of Physical Training Instructors have already been granted
D U.G.C. scale and an order declining relief to the respondent
would result in discrimination. The Division Bench also referred
~
to the judgment in P. S. Ramamohana Rao (supra) and held
that the respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of pay
scale which has already been extended to other similarly
E situated Physical Training Instructors employed in the Ayurvedic
Colleges.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the
provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems
F of Medicine and Homeopathy) Class Ill Ministerial Services
Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987
..
Rules") and the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service
(Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1990 Rules") to contend that recruitment to
the posts of Physical Training Instructors and Sports Officers
G
are regulated by different sets of rules. It was argued that
holders of the two posts cannot be treated at par for the
purpose of fixation of pay in the UGC scale. The learned
counsel submitted that the High Court committed serious error
by relying upon the ratio of the judgment in P. S. Ramamohana
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 29
CHANDRA BAJPAI [S.S. SINHA, J.]
Rao (supra) for the purpose of granting relief to the respondent A
because the only question considered therein was whether
having regard to the nature of duties performed by the appellant
therein, a person holding the post of Physical Director in Andhra
Pradesh Agricultural University was entitled to be treated as
teacher within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the A.P. B
Agricultural University Act, 1963 (for short 'the 1963 Act') and
was, thus, entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel stated that benefit of the UGC scales of pay
have not been extended to the employees of Ayurvedic
Colleges including the members of teaching staff and those c
governed by the 1987 Rules. On the issue of grant of UGC
scale of pay to other Physical Training Instructors, learned
counsel invited our attention to para 3(iii) of the rejoinder
affidavit, which reads as under:-
"ln reply it is submitted that it is correct that on the basis D
of the orders passed by the High Court some of the
Physical Training Instructors have been given UGC p~y
scales but this has been done in compliance of the orders
passed by the High Court and the same could not be
challenged on the ground that the appeal had become time E
barred and orders could not be challenged because of the
advise received at the relevant time. Subsequently, it has
been found that erroneously Physical Training Instructors
of Engineering, Medical and Ayurvedic Colleges have
been given UGC Pay Scales even though the F
Administrators, Lecturers, Professors and Principal of
Engineering, Medical and Ayurvedic Colleges are not
getting the UGC pay scales."
8. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that after G
ha':'ng accepted and implemented the orders passed by the
+ Tribunal and the High Court in the cases of other Physical
Training Instructors for grant of UGC scale of pay, it is not open
to the appellants to discriminate the respondent by relying upon
the provisions of the 1987 Rules. He invited the court's attention H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.
A to an order dated 24.5.2004 to show that the Physical Training
Instructors appointed in Medical Colleges of the State have ,..
been granted the benefit of UGC scale of pay and submitted
that the High Court did not commit any error by directing the
petitioners to fix the respondent's pay in the UGC scale.
B Learned counsel pointed out that as late as on 24.4.2004, the
State Government has extended the benefit of UGC scale of
pay to Physical Training Instructors of other colleges and
submitted that there is no rationality or reason for denying the
same benefit to the respondent. ;·
c 9. It is not in dispute that Ayurvedic Colleges situated in
the State of Madhya Pradesh are under the control of the
Department of Medical Education. It is also not in dispute that
at present recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor
is regulated by the 1987 Rules. In terms of rules 5, 6 and 8 read
D with the relevant entries of Schedules I, II and Ill of the 1987
Rules, the post of Physical Training Instructor is categorized as
Class Ill Non-Ministerial under the heading 'Establishment of ~
Divisional Organization' and the same is required to be filled
100 per cent by direct recruitment from amongst the persons
E possessing the requisite educational qualification of Diploma
in Physical Training.
The post of Sports Officer finds mention in the four
\.
Schedules appended to the 1990 Rules. By virtue of Rule 8
F read with the relevant entries of Schedules II and 111 of the 1990
Rules, the post of Sports Officer is required to be filled as under:
90% by direct recruitment; and 10% by promotion from
amongst the Assistant Sports Officers.
G 10. The educational qualification prescribed for direct
recruitment to the post of Sports Officer is a Post Graduate
Degree in physical education with at least 55% marks and at
the degree level of physical education, the percentage of total
marks obtained should not be less than 50.
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 31
CHANDRA BAJPAI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
11. A comparison of the provisions of the 1987 Rules and A
~ 1990 Rules clearly establish that they not only deal with different
classes of employees but the educational qualifications and
scales of pay prescribed for the posts enumerated in Schedules
of two sets of Rules are entirely different. While the 1987 Rules
regulate recruitment to Class Ill Ministerial and Non-Ministerial B
posts in various colleges imparting education in Indian System
of Medicine including Ayurveda, the 1990 rules regulate
recruitment to different posts in the Educational Service
.i, (Collegiate Branch) including that of Sports Officer.
12. The post of 'teacher' does not find place either in the
c
1987 Rules or in the 1990 Rules. We have made a mention of
this fact only because the respondent has claimed parity in the
matter of pay scale with teachers.
13. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the Division D
Bench of the High Court observed that the rules governing and
~· regulating the service of respondent make a distinction
between Physical Training Instructor and teacher in the matter
of status and pay scale, but proceeded to sustain the direction
given by·the learned single judge mainly on the premise that E
the orders passed in the cases of other Physical Training
Instructors have not been assailed.
~ The Division Bench also relied upon the ratio of judgment
of this Court in Ramamohana Rao (supra) case) and observed F
that the nature and duties of the Physical Training Instructors
are at par with those of teachers.
14. In our view, the approach adopted by the learned
Single Judge and Division Bench is clearly erroneous.
G
.._ It is well settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated.
Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work is not
determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court
has to consider the factors like the source and !node of H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the
value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, ..
confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality
clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when
there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts.
B
15. In Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun Kumar Roy
[2004 (1) SCC 347], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held
as under:
"14. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution >-
c of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only
because the nature of the work is same, irrespective of
an educational qualification or irrespective of their source
of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said
D doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a
higher educational qualification can be treated as a
separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is _,,
reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but
having different educational qualification can, thus, be
E treated differently."
16. The Court further opined that in a case where the
employees do not hold essential educational qualifications, they
cannot claim parity in the scale of pay on the ground of equality ~
stating:
F
"30. The respondents are merely graduates in Science.
They do not have the requisite technical qualification. Only
because they are graduates, they cannot, in our opinion,
cl.aim equality with the holders of diploma in Engineering.
G If any relief is granted by this court to the respondents on
the aforementioned, ground, the same will be in +
contravention of the statutory rules. It is trite that this court
even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India would not ordinarily grant such a relief
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 33
CHANDRA BAJPAI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
which would be in violation of a statutory provision." A
17. It is also well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution
carries with it a positive concept of equality. That Article cannot
be invoked for perpetuating illegality. To put it differently, an
illegal or wrong order passed in one case cannot be made the 8
basis for compelling a public authority to pass similar order in
other cases. Even if the State implements an erroneous order
passed by the court, it cannot be precluded from challenging
similar order passed in another case, simply because appeal
was not preferred in the earlier case. In Government of West C
Bengal (supra), the Court upon noticing a large number of
decisions, observed:-
"25. In a case of this nature, the courts are required to
determine the issue having regard to larger public interest.
It is one thing to say that in a given case the High Court or D
this Court may not exercise an equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but
it is another thing to say that the courts shall grant a relief
to a party only on the ground that a contention which is
otherwise valid would not be raised on the ground that the . E
same was not done in earlier proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx
-~
28. In the aforementioned situation, the Division Bench of
F
the Calcutta High Court manifestly erred in refusing to
consider the contentions of the appellants on their own
merit, particularly, when the question as regards difference
in the grant of scale of pay on the ground of different
. educational qualification stands concluded by a judgment
of this Court in Debdas Kumar. If the judgment of Debdas G
... Kumar is to be followed a finding of fact was required to
be arrived at that they are similarly situated to the case of
Debdas Kumar which in turn would mean that they are
also holders of diploma in Engineering. They admittedly
being not, the contention of the appellants could not be H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.
A rejected. Non-filing of an appeal, in any event, would not
be a ground for refusing to consider a matter on its own .
merits (See State of Maharashtra v. Digambar)."
18. In State of Jharkhand and others v. Manshu
B Kumbhkar [2007 (8) SCC 249], this Court held:-
"11. Reliance by the High Court on the order passed in
Sanjay Kumar case was thoroughly misconceived. It is to
be noted that LPA was dismissed on the ground of delay.
\.
Even otherwise, merely because mistake had been
c committed in one case, there is no rational for perpetuating
that mistake, even when the same is legally impermissible."
19. In Vice-Chancellor, MD. University, Rohtak v. Jahan
Singh [2007 (5) SCC 77], this Court observed:-
D
"Even assuming the respondent and the said Shri Taneja
were similarly situated, we may observe that Article 14 of
the Constitution of India carried with it a positive concept. "
Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, for
perpetuating illegality." (See Ku/deep Singh v. Govt. of
E
NCT of Delhi [2006 (5) sec 702]."
[See also Bihar Public Service Commission and others
v. Kamini and others [2007 (8) SCC 519].
'
F 20. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, it must
be held that the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the
fact that in compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and
High Court, tt:ie State Government extended the benefit of UGC
r
scale of pay to some of the Physical Training Instructors of
G Ayurvedic and other colleges. We may assume that what the
learned counsel has stated with reference to order dated
24.4.2009 is correct, but as noticed hereinabove the illegality
cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by invoking the doctrine
of equal pay for equal work.
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 35
CHANDRA BAJPAI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
21. We may now notice the ratio of the decision in P.S. A
; Ramamohana Rao (supra). In that case, this Court was called
upon to decide whether Physical Training Instructor in Andhra
Pradesh Agricultural University was a teacher within the
meaning of Section 2 (n) and was entitled to continue in seNice
up to the age of 60 years. The appellant in that case was B
employed as a Physical Director in Bapatla Agricultural College,
which was later on transferred to Andhra Pradesh Agricultural
University. The University sought to retire the appellant on
completion of 58 years. The writ petition filed by him questioning
··• the decision of the University was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court on the premise that Physical Director
c
does not fall within the ambit of definition of 'teacher'. This Court
referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and regulations
framed thereunder including Section 2(n), which reads as
under:-
D
"2(n) 'teacher' includes a professor, reader, lecturer or
other person appointed or recognized by the University for
the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and
guiding research or extension programmes, and any
person declared by the statutes to be a teacher;" E
The Court then noted that duties of the Physical Director in the
University were, (a) to arrange games and sports daily in the
-\ evening for the students; (b) to look after the procurement of
sports materials and maintenance of the sports ground; (c) to F
arrange inter-class and inter-collegiate tournaments; (d) to
accompany the student teams for the inter-university
tournaments and (e) to guide the students about the rules of the
various games and sports and held:-
"9. From the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that a Physical G-
Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges
games and sports for the students every evening and .looks
after the procurement of sports material _and the
maintenance of the grounds but also ·arranges inter-class
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A and inter-college tournaments and accompanies the
students' team when they go for the inter-university
tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important
duties to guide them about the rules of the various games
and sports. It is well known that different games and sports
B have different rules and practices and unless the students
are guided about the said rules and practices they will not
be able to play the games and participate in the sports in
a proper manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the
duties of Physical Director that he imparts to the students
c various skills and techniques of these games and sports. ·-
There are a large number of indoor and outdoor games
in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has
to teach them several skills and techniques of these games
apart from the rules applicable to these games.
D 10. Having regard to the abovesaid material before us,
we are clearly of the view that the appellant comes within
the definition of a teacher in sub-clause (n) of Section 2
of the Act."
E 22. We may observe that definition of 'teacher' contained
in Section 2(n) of the Andhra Act was an expansive one to
include those persons who were not only been imparting
instructions but also were conducting and carrying on research
for extension programmes. It also included those who had been
F declared to be a teacher within the purview of the definition
thereof in terms of any Statutes framed by such State.
23. In our view, the aforementioned decision has been
misapplied and misconstrued by the High court.
G It is now well settled principles of law that a decision is an
authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom. In Ramamohana Rao (supra), this Court,
having regard to the nature of duties and functions of Physical
Director, held that that post comes within the definition of
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 37
CHANDRA BAJPAI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
teacher as contained in Section 2(n). The proposition laid down A
i
in that case should not have been automatically extended to
other case like the present one, where employees are governed
by different sets of rules.
24. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed B
and the impugned judgment is set aside. No costs.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
...
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "equal pay for equal work"Sign in to search