Constitution of India: Art.14: Classification test – The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development published communications on revision of pay scale of the Lecturers on one side and the Administrative Staff starting from the Registrar on the other – The State of Uttarakhand applied the directions issued by the Central Government on revised salary to its teaching faculty alone, and not to the registrar – Allegation of discrimination – High Court held that the pay scale was meant to be applied to registrar and the faculty both – On appeal, held: 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 – High Court misconstrued the facts – Appellant nowhere 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 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 – 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 – One is meant for administration and the other teaching – Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 – Universities. Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: s.17(1) – Appointment – Whether State Universities bound by directions issued by Central Government – Held: Appellant not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government which would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities, and Colleges receiving funds by the Central Government. Such directions would be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 14][920-A-B]
1.2 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. [Para 15][920-B-D]
1.3 The question as to whether a classification is reasonable or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable, common man’s approach, keeping in mind the avowed object behind it. 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. 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. [Para 17][920-E-H; 921-A]
1.4 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. 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. [Para 18][921-A-C]
2.1 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. [Para 20][930-D-E]
2.2 The High Court of Uttarakhand has 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. 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. One is meant for administration and the other teaching. [Para 21][930-H; 931-A-D]
Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust (2011) 2 SCC 575: [2010] 14 SCR 873; Shamasundar v. University of Mysore 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 430; Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521: [1994] 1 SCR 700; Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437; Hotel & Bar (FL.3) Association of Tamil Nadu (HOBAT) v. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 7092; Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664: [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94; State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639: [2011] 6 SCR 443; Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408: [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 73; Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437: [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 55; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363: [2015] 3 SCR 467 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.