# [1987] 1 S.C.R. 579

- **Citation:** [1987] 1 S.C.R. 579
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-12-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 110 F of 1974
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1987-1-s-c-r-579-9430
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

)
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 recruitment-Diploma holder and certificate holder both eligible-Placed in
same pay scale-Revision of pay scales-Different pay scales to c
,J..
. Diploma holders and Certificate holders given-Whether permissible.
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.
D
Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs.150-320, and Certificate
holders Rs.150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respondent, 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 experience 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
Jprescribed for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate, and the
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
G
scales could not be enforced for the same post merely on the basis of a
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
the fact that be may be a Certificate holder or a Diploma holder, and
.~
directed that the respondent be placed in the pay scale not lower than
'
that of the Diploma holders.
H
579
A
B
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 1 S.C.R.
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 reasonable 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.
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 qualification 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

## Text

)
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 recruitment-Diploma holder and certificate holder both eligible-Placed in
same pay scale-Revision of pay scales-Different pay scales to c
,J..
. Diploma holders and Certificate holders given-Whether permissible.
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.
D
Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs.150-320, and Certificate
holders Rs.150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respondent, 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 experience 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
Jprescribed for holders of Diploma and holders of Certificate, and the
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
G
scales could not be enforced for the same post merely on the basis of a
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
the fact that be may be a Certificate holder or a Diploma holder, and
.~
directed that the respondent be placed in the pay scale not lower than
'
that of the Diploma holders.
H
579
A
B
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 1 S.C.R.
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 reasonable 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.
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 qualification 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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
OZA, J. tJ,is appeal arises out of Special Leave granted by this
_,i...) .
-
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.
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 recommendations of the All India Council for Technical Education suggested revised pay scales of pay of Workshop Instructors and in these
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 Government and when he did not succeed in spite of repeated representations
he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
alleging that by not giving the pay scale to the respondent the Government of Karnataka had discriminated.
c
D
E
F
G
• ... !._
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
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
matter is of general importance as according to the learned counsel
different pay scales on the basis of difference in educational qualifications 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.
A
It is very significant that Hon 'ble the High Court did not indulge "'
in the examination of the general question. It restricted its consideralion 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
B
a Diploma. It is also observed in the judgment that at the time when
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 i
person will perform the same duties and will do the same work in spite
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 described differently. It was argued that a diploma is a higher qualificalion 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 therefore did not go into the general question as to whether on the basis of
H
educational qualifications different pay scales can or cannot be
prescribed and in absence of any material it will not be possible for us
.,..
·f
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 ·
A.P.J.
Appeal dismissed.
B