Holding

The High Court did not err; there was no material to show a diploma was a higher qualification, so the respondent was entitled to the same pay scale as diploma holders.

Summary

The respondent, B. Basavalingappa, was appointed as a workshop mechanic and later promoted to workshop instructor in the Mysore State. When pay scales were revised in 1961, diploma holders were placed in a higher scale (Rs.150‑320) than certificate holders (Rs.150‑250), and a further revision in 1964 gave a still higher scale (Rs.260‑500) to instructors with a second‑class diploma or equivalent experience. The respondent, a certificate holder, was denied the higher scales despite repeated representations and filed a writ petition alleging discrimination in violation of Article 14. The Karnataka High Court held that at the time of his recruitment there was no distinction between diploma and certificate holders for the post and ordered that he be placed in a scale not lower than that of diploma holders. On appeal, the Supreme Court found no evidence that a diploma was a higher qualification than a certificate and observed that the High Court correctly limited its enquiry to the facts of the case, refusing to decide the broader constitutional question. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether assigning different pay scales to diploma and certificate holders for the same post violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether a diploma is a higher qualification than a certificate for the purpose of pay‑scale classification.
Whether the Karnataka High Court erred in its decision to order equal pay for the respondent.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

discriminationpay scalesArticle 14equalityeducational qualificationscivil serviceworkshop instructorclassificationconstitutional law

Judgment

)

STATE OF MYSORE A
v.
.~ B. BASAVALINGAPPA

DECEMBER 17, 1986

[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SINGH; JJ.] . B

~
Civil Service.

Workshop Mechanic and Workshop. Instructor-Basis of recruit-
ment-Diploma holder and certificate holder both eligible-Placed in
same pay scale-Revision of pay scales-Different pay scales to c
. Diploma holders and Certificate holders given-Whether permissible.
,J..
The respondent was appointed as a Workshop Mechanic. He was
_.. promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor on 7.8.1959 in the pay
scale of Rs.100-120. The pay scales w~re revised w.e.r. 1.1.1961.
Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs.150-320, and Certificate D
holders Rs.150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respon-
dent, a Certificate holder, was given th~ pay scale of Rs.150-250. The
pay scales were again revised in 1964 and Workshop Instructors ·with
second class Diploma or equivalent qualifications with 10 years experi-
ence were given the pay scale of Rs.260-500, but the respondent did not
get this. scale in spite of repeated representations made to the State E
.,,.. Government •

The respondent filed a Writ Petition alleging discrimination. The

- High Court allowed the petition holding: (!)that for recruitme~t to the
post of Workshop Instructor no distinction is ~ade between the holders
of a Certificate and holders of a Diploma., (2) that at the time when the . F
respondent was recruited there was no difference in the pay scales
prescribed for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate, and the
J- basis for recruitment was that Diploma holder and Certificate holder
both were entitled to be appointed to the same post in the same pay
scale, .and (3) ~hat by subsequent revision of pay scale different pay
scales could not be enforced for the same post merely on the basis of a G
bolder of a Certificate or a Diploma because as an Instructor the
person will perform the same duties and will do the same work in spite of
a
the fact that be may be a Certificate holder or Diploma holder, and
.~ directed that the respondent be placed in the pay scale not lower than
' that of the Diploma holders.
H

579
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

A
In appeal ~o this Court on beb.ir of the Appellaat-State it was
contended: ( 1) that the different pay scales on the basis of difference in
educational qualifications could he justified and will amount to reason-
able classification and will not he hit by Article 14 of the Constitution,
(2) that a Diploma is a higher qualification than a Certificate and (3)
that the view taken by the High Court is not correct.
B
Dismissing the Appeal,

HELD: I. Neither there is any curriculum on record nor any
other material to draw the inference that Diploma"is a higher qualifica-
tion than a Certificate. At the lime when respondent was recruited
C there was only one cadre and a Diploma holder or a Certificate holder
both were entitled to he recruited as an Instructor on the same pay
scale. This circumstance indicates that the two were considered to he
alike. (582E-F]

2. There is no material on record to indicate that when the pay
D scales were revised and subsequently they were further revised it was
done on the basis of some material indicating that the Diploma became a
better qualification than the Certificate holder. It was because of this
the High Court did not go into the general question as to whether on the
basis of educational qualifications different pay scales can or could not
he prescribed and in the absence of any material it wiU not he possible
E for this Court to go into that question. [582F-H]

3. On the facts of the present case it could not he said that the
High Court committed any error. [583A-B l

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 110
F of 1974.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3. 1973 of the Mysore
High Court in Writ Petition No. 2213 of 1970.

R.B. Datar, Swaraj Kaushal, K.M. Muzamnil and N. Nettar for
G the Appellant. •

S.S. Khanduja and Y .P. Dhingra for the Respondent. _,i...) .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H OZA, J. tJ,is appeal arises out of Special Leave granted by this
STATE OF MYSORE v. B. BASAVALINGAPPA lOZA,J.] 581

. Jr Court against the Judgnient of the High Court in Writ Petition No. A
2213 of 1970 decided on 6.3.1973 ..

The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the
respondent was appointed as a Workshop Mechanic in B.D.T. College
of Engineering, Devangere in the year 1953. He was promoted to the
post of Workshop Instructor by order dated 7.8.1959 in the pay scale .B
of Rs.100-200. In 1961 the pay scales were revised with effect from
1. 1.1961. Diploma holders wer~ given the pay scale of Rs.150-320 and
Certificate holders Rs.150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor.

- The respondent who was a Certificate holder and not a Diploma
holder was accordingly given the pay scale of Rs.150-250.
c
By a notification dated 5.5.1964 the Government of Mysore
made rules known as Mysore Education Department (Technical··
Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules and it is alleged that at
about the same time the Government of India after accepting recom-
mendations of the All India Council for Technical Education sugges-
ted revised pay scales of pay of Workshop Instructors and in these D
recommendations also the Workshop Instructors with second class
Diploma or equivalent qualifications with IO years experience were
given the pay scales of Rs.260-500 and it is alleged that as the respondent
was not entitled to this pay scale he was not given. It is alleged that
~-. in 1969 the respondent niade a representation to the State Govern-
ment and when he did not succeed in spite of repeated representations E
he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
alleging that by not giving the pay scale to the respondent the Govern-
ment of Karnataka had discriminated.

The High Court by its judgment dated 6.3. 1973 allowed the Writ
Petition filed by the respondent and directed that the petitioner to be F
placed in the proper pay scale and should not be placed in the pay scale
lower than the Diploma holders. It is against this judgment that the
State of Karnataka after obtaining leave from this Court preferred this
appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that so far as the
present respondent is concerned the State Government is not very
keen not to give the advantage to .him but it was contended that the G
matter is of general importance as according to the learned counsel
• ...!._ different pay scales on the basis of difference in educational qualifica-
tions could be justified and will amount to reasonable classification
and therefore and will not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. He
by reference to certain observations in some of the judgments of this
Court contended that the view taken by the High Court is not correct. H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.

It is very significant that Hon 'ble the High Court did not indulge
A
in the examination of the general question. It restricted its considera-
lion to the facts of the present case as it stood. It is observed in the
"'
judgment that for recruitment to the post of Workshop Instructor no
distinction is made between the holders of a Certificate and holders of
a Diploma. It is also observed in the judgment that at the time when
B this respondent was recruited there was no difference in the pay scales
..;-
prescribed for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate and when
at the time of recruitment they were recruited on the basis that
diploma holder and certificate holder both were entitled to be
appointed to the same post in the same pay scale. The High Court took
in view that by subsequent revision of pay scale different pay scales •
~
c could not be enforced for the same post merely on the basis of a holder
of a certificate or a diploma as it was held that as an InsJructor "the
person will perform the same duties and will do the same work in spite i
of the fact that he may be a certificate holder or a d,iploma holder.

It is not disputed before us that so far as the facts stated in the
D judgment of the High Court are concerned they are not disputed. It is
admitted that at the time when this respondent was recruited there was
only one cadre and that was of Instructor and only one pay scale and
the certificate holder or a diploma. holder both were entitled to be
recruited on that post. No material is in the record on the basisof
which it could be contended that there was any substantial difference At
E at that time between the two qualifications although they were de-
scribed differently. It was argued that a diploma is a higher qualifica-
lion than a certificate. But neither there is any curriculum on record
nor any other material to draw that inference. On the contrary this ...
circumstance that at the time when respondent was recruited a
diploma holder or a certificate holder both were entitled to be recruited
F as an Instructor on the same pay scale and this indicates that in those
days the two were considered to be alike. _};-
There is also no material to indicate that when the pay scales
were revised and subsequently when they were further revised it was
done on the basis of some material indicating that the diploma became
G a better qualification than the certificate. In fact we- have no further
material to examine the question in the broader aspect. It appears that
it was because of this that the learned Judges of the High Court accord- ,i.-·
ingly disposed of the matter on the facts of this case alone and there-
fore did not go into the general question as to whether on the basis of
educational qualifications different pay scales can or cannot be
H prescribed and in absence of any material it will not be possible for us
STATE OF MYSORE v. B. BASAVALINGAPPA [bZA,J.] 583
.,..
to go into that question. Apart from it that question is not material for A
decision of the present appeal, it is not necessary for us to examine the
matter which will merely be an academic exercise. On the facts of the
present case it cannot be said that the High Court committed any error
in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent. The appeal is
therefore dismissed with costs. The respondent shall be entitled to cost
of the appeaL · B

A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.

·f