# RAM LAL WADHWA & ANR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 608
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 97 of 1970
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, A. N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D. G. Palekar, H. R. Khanna, K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-lal-wadhwa-anr-v-the-state-of-haryana-ors-5697
- **Pages:** 60

## Headnote

Comtitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 & 16-Equalily of opportu·
nity in 11w.tters of promotion-Purljab Educational Service C.Provincialised
Cadre) Class Ill Rules, 1961-Validity-Schools run by Local
Bodies
and teachers taken over by government in 1957-Teachers
given same
scales of pay as given to those in gvvernme,n't run
schools-1961 Rules
fornring separate and diminishing cadre for
teachers of Local
Bodies
Schools taken over by government-Rules if discrin1inatory in matters of
pron1otio11.
The schools run by municipal boards and district boards in the then
State of Punjab were taken over by the Punjab Government with effect
from October l, 1957.
The teachers then employed in these schools,
thu>
became
State
employees.
These
teachers
called
'pro·
vincialised'
teachers
were
to
be
given
the
same
grades
of pay
and
other
allowances
as were
given
to
their
counterparts
in
government employment.
The teachers in government employment were
governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules,
1955. On February 13, 1961, the Punjab government promulgateJ under
article 309 of the Constitution, the Punjab Educational Service (Provin·
cialised Cadre) Class III Rules, giving them retrospective effect
from
Oct. I, 1957.
By these Rules the provincialised teachers were treated as
falling under a Cadre separate and distinct from teachers in the State Cadre
governed by the 1955 Rules.
The 'provincialised'
Cadre
wcs to be a
diminishing cadre to become extinct in course o'{ time. There was to be
no furthei. recruitment to that cadre and all vacancies arising in that cadre
\Vere to be replenished by direct recruitment to the State cadre.
T'he
transfer of such posts to the State cadre was to be done by splitting up
such vacant posts into blocks of 7 and 6 by rotation. Consequently, the
selection grade of 15 in the State cadre progressively increased in strength
which was determined by the total cadre strength while the selection
grade in the provincialised
cadre progressively decreased.
Thus those
recruited to the State cadre had a progressively larger chance of getting
into the selection grade.
In State of P1111iab v. Joginder Singh. [,1963] 2 Supp. S.C,R. 169, this
Court upheld the validity of the 1961 Rules against challenge under articles
14 ond 16 of the Constitution.
In the view of the majority the two
cadrei started as independent services, they were never integrated into
one •ervice and, therefore, the dissimilarity of the treatment by the Rules
was not a denial of equal opportunity. But, the Punjab government never
implemented the Rules at any time.
On the reorganisation of the erst·
while Punjab State into Punjab and Haryana on Nov. !, 1966, the Haryana
government put the 1961 Rules into operation.
The petitioners, appointed in the Local Bodies Schools before 'provincialisation", challenged the validity of the 1961 Rules. Their compiaint was
thJt the Rules created. without any valid justification,
two cadres, the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
R. L. WADHWA V. HARYANA (She/at, J,)
609
State cadre and the provincialised cadre, the former including not only
the Government School teachers but also those recruited afte{ October 1,
1957 and posted in the provincialised schools; that by reason of having
two cadres and providing for both a uniform 15 % for selectiOll grade
posts. coupled with making the provincialised cadre a diminishing one, the
result has been that teachers deemed to have been appointed to the State
cadre with effect from October 1, 1957 and even those recruited thereafter
have been promoted to the Selection grade, while those in the provincialised cadre, though senior in service and performed identical duties and
had identical scales of pay, remained in the ordinary grade. According to
the petitioners these Rules and their implementation contravened articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioners contended that the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh's case required reconsideration.
HELD : (Per S

## Text

_Characters 0–39,069 of 172,950. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39069 for what follows._

608
RAM LAL WADHWA & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
May 5,.1972
(With connected Petition)
[J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, D. G.
PALEKAR, H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW AND
M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Comtitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 & 16-Equalily of opportu·
nity in 11w.tters of promotion-Purljab Educational Service C.Provincialised
Cadre) Class Ill Rules, 1961-Validity-Schools run by Local
Bodies
and teachers taken over by government in 1957-Teachers
given same
scales of pay as given to those in gvvernme,n't run
schools-1961 Rules
fornring separate and diminishing cadre for
teachers of Local
Bodies
Schools taken over by government-Rules if discrin1inatory in matters of
pron1otio11.
The schools run by municipal boards and district boards in the then
State of Punjab were taken over by the Punjab Government with effect
from October l, 1957.
The teachers then employed in these schools,
thu>
became
State
employees.
These
teachers
called
'pro·
vincialised'
teachers
were
to
be
given
the
same
grades
of pay
and
other
allowances
as were
given
to
their
counterparts
in
government employment.
The teachers in government employment were
governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules,
1955. On February 13, 1961, the Punjab government promulgateJ under
article 309 of the Constitution, the Punjab Educational Service (Provin·
cialised Cadre) Class III Rules, giving them retrospective effect
from
Oct. I, 1957.
By these Rules the provincialised teachers were treated as
falling under a Cadre separate and distinct from teachers in the State Cadre
governed by the 1955 Rules.
The 'provincialised'
Cadre
wcs to be a
diminishing cadre to become extinct in course o'{ time. There was to be
no furthei. recruitment to that cadre and all vacancies arising in that cadre
\Vere to be replenished by direct recruitment to the State cadre.
T'he
transfer of such posts to the State cadre was to be done by splitting up
such vacant posts into blocks of 7 and 6 by rotation. Consequently, the
selection grade of 15 in the State cadre progressively increased in strength
which was determined by the total cadre strength while the selection
grade in the provincialised
cadre progressively decreased.
Thus those
recruited to the State cadre had a progressively larger chance of getting
into the selection grade.
In State of P1111iab v. Joginder Singh. [,1963] 2 Supp. S.C,R. 169, this
Court upheld the validity of the 1961 Rules against challenge under articles
14 ond 16 of the Constitution.
In the view of the majority the two
cadrei started as independent services, they were never integrated into
one •ervice and, therefore, the dissimilarity of the treatment by the Rules
was not a denial of equal opportunity. But, the Punjab government never
implemented the Rules at any time.
On the reorganisation of the erst·
while Punjab State into Punjab and Haryana on Nov. !, 1966, the Haryana
government put the 1961 Rules into operation.
The petitioners, appointed in the Local Bodies Schools before 'provincialisation", challenged the validity of the 1961 Rules. Their compiaint was
thJt the Rules created. without any valid justification,
two cadres, the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
R. L. WADHWA V. HARYANA (She/at, J,)
609
State cadre and the provincialised cadre, the former including not only
the Government School teachers but also those recruited afte{ October 1,
1957 and posted in the provincialised schools; that by reason of having
two cadres and providing for both a uniform 15 % for selectiOll grade
posts. coupled with making the provincialised cadre a diminishing one, the
result has been that teachers deemed to have been appointed to the State
cadre with effect from October 1, 1957 and even those recruited thereafter
have been promoted to the Selection grade, while those in the provincialised cadre, though senior in service and performed identical duties and
had identical scales of pay, remained in the ordinary grade. According to
the petitioners these Rules and their implementation contravened articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioners contended that the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh's case required reconsideration.
HELD : (Per Shela!, Ray, Jaganmohan Reddy, Khanna and Mathew,
JJ., Palekar and Beg, JJ. dissenting) dismissing the petition,
( i) The majority decision in Joginder Singh's case does not need reconsideration.
[638 DJ
(ii) Ever since 1937, and even before, the two categories of teachers
have always remained distinct governed by different sets of Rules, recruited by different authorities and having, otherwise than in the matter of
pay scales and quaJifications, different conditions of service. This position
remained as late as February 13, 1961.
On that day whereas the State
cadre teache~s were governed by the IJ55 Rules, rules bad yet to
be
framed for the provincialised teacb<rs.
The two cadres thus being separate, government was not bound to bring about an integrated cadre especially in view of its decision IPaking the provincialised cadre a diminishing
one and bringing about ultimately through that principle one cadre only
in a phased manner. If through historical reasons the teachers had remained in two separate categories, the classification of the provincialised
teachers into a separate cadre could not be said to infringe article 14 or
artick 16.
[635 B-EJ
(iii) It was also not incumbent on the government to make the 1961
Rules uniformly applicable to both the categories. of teachers, firstly, because, a rule framing authority need not legislate for all the categories aad
c:in "Select for which category to legislate, and, secondly bec!'.l.use, it had
already come to a decision of gradually diminishing
the provincialised
cadre so that ultimately only the state cadre would remain. That was one
way of solving the intricate diffidu\ty of inter seniority.
[635 E-Fl
Sakhmvat Ali, State of Orissa, [1955J 1 S.C.R.
1004,
Madhubhai
Amathalal Gandhi v. The Union of India: iJ961J 1 S.C.R. 191 and Vivian
Joseph Ferreira v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, f\972]
1 S.C.R. 70, referred to.
G
(iv) The government had the power to make rules with retrospective
effect and therefore could provide therein that appointments made between October I, !957 and February 13, 1961 shall be treated as appointments in the State cadre.
That had to be done for the reason that the
provincialised cadre was already frozen even before October 1, 1957, and
government had dedded not to make fresh appointments in that cadre
since that cadre was to be a diminishing one.
[635 HJ
H
(Y). The logic of government decision to make the provincia\ised cadre
a diminishing one was that as the posts in tllat caore gradually diminished ·
the number of selection posts also diminished. n.e proportion of 85 : 15
however. remained intact, and teachers in hoth the cadres according
to
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'73] 1 S.C.R.
their seniority continued to obtain their promotional chances. No injustice
A
in this process could justifiably be claimed as when the posts in the pr~
vincialised cadre were larger in number, its members got a larger number
of selection posts.
The block system was devised to implement the process of diminution in a phased manner.
Whether the ratio of 11/13
resuJted from it or not is not material, 'for once the principle of that cadre
being a diminished one is accepted as not violating article 14 or article 16
and so long as 15 % remained untouched the block system is no more than
B
a method to further the proc.ess of diminution.
[640 C·D]
(vi) The case of the respondents appointed after provincialisation and
are junior in service to the petitioners, is not comparable, for, they were
appointed under the 1955 Rules.
They may have been posted in
the
provincialised Schools but that cannot mean that they were appointed in
that cadre. Their appointment being in a separate cadre it is· impossible
· to say that they were similarly situated.
By reason of their recruitment
C
in the state cadre, their conditions of service· including their promotional
chances and their seniority would be governed by 1955 Rules and would
only be comparable to those in that cadre only.
[638H-639B]
Per Palekar J : The petitions must be allowed and the rules of 1961
quashed as violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights under articles
14 ano 16 of the Constitution.
(I) The decision in loginder's case required to be reviewed.
D
(2) The Punjab Government throughout
considered the teachers as
equal in all respects giving them the same scales of pay made them work
in the same schools and endeavoured to ensure the same chances of pro·
motio·1 to all. The government
thought that the best way of ensuring
equal chances of promotion was to keep the cadres separate for su.me
time and effect promotions separately in "the two cadres by a formula
which ensured 15% higher posts at any given time to the provincialised
E
cadre and 15% to the State eadre. In this way the State believed that i! had
effected emotiond integration of both the sedions of teachers.
T'ue
Qovernment, however, failed to visualise that by reason of the ,;idc
disparity of posts in the two cadres (107 in the State cadre and 20,700
in the provinrialised cadre) the number of higher grade posts in the
State cadre would swell by the transfer of a disproportionately large
number of posts which fell vacant in the provincialised service and that
juaion in Govt. service, would after completing 5 years of qualifying serF
vice become eligible to be appointed to all those higher posts in the State
eadre much earlier than their seniors who were borne on the provincialised Jill The majority judgment, in Joginder's case does not appear to
bave been aware of the future impact of the Rules. If the Rules are given
eft'ect to, seniors in the provincialised service \Vill have to remain in the
l<iwer grade while the juniors in the state cadre will go into the higher
grade.
Once they go into the higher grade, they will become seniors for
G
all purposes and will block the entry of a member of the provincialised
oervk:e to higher posts of Head teacher in the case of Primary schoOls
and Head Masters in the case oC Secondary schools.
[658B-65'}A]
That this was not the result the State Government had desires is
clear from the government's conduct1 after the decision
in
Joginder's
case.
The Puniab Government did not enforce the Rules. On the other
hand
the
government
unified
the two
grad'"'
and
with
the
unification, the twv gr1ldes, one ortiinary and the other promotional
H
disappeared and the teachers whether belonged to •the
State
cadre
or the provincialised cadre continued in one grade each one drawing his
salary in acco_rda!lce with the years put in the service.
This further
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
R. L. WADllWA v. HAR'l'ANA (She/at, /.)
611
establillbes that the State government had always considered t;he two
seGtions of • . .hers as equals.
The unified grade continued to apply
to all these teachers after the creation of Haryana State. [659-Fl
The minority in Joginder's case is right in holding that after the District Board and Municipal Board School teachers were taken over by
the government of Punjab an amalgamated Educational
Service
was
evolved and chat the goveniment by giving the same terms of employment had iii •fact c'onstituted a single grade of teache~tate and Provincialised.
After doing that. it was not open to the government, in
1961, to seek to pro\ide a differential treatment between the two sections
constituting one unit by retrospective provision.
On tJie Government's
own showing the teachers were divided into· the two cadres,
namely,
the State cadre and the provincialised cadre .in 1961, solely to give equal
chances of promotion 'to both sections of teachers.
The plan, however, .miscarried owing to circumstances not clearly visualised at the time
and resulted in frustrating the object of securing equality in the matter
of promotion.
With that, the rai'son d'etre for the classification
disappeared and the questilln of linking it with the object did not survh-e .
. The obieet of the Punjab state government was to e\-olve one service
out of two parallel services the members of the two
services
being
regarded as equal to all substantial respects.
1be government accepted
gradualism in integration only with a view to secure the same chances
of promotion to both the sections.
[660A-C, GJ
The majority in Joginder's case does not appear to have considered
the question with regard to juniors appointed after October 1, 1957
•tealiag a march over those who were absorbed on that date. Though
it may be theoretically possible to regard the employees in the State
cadre prior to October I, 1957 as members of a distinct class, it is
improssible to do so with regard to those who have been appointed in the
vacancies in the provincialised schools after October 1, 1957.
Being
appointed in the posts of the provincialised service, they belong to the
same class as the other members of the provincialised service and· it is
not possible by any artificial devise to give more advantageous chancis
of promotion to the new recruits.
Even if the classification is accepted
as a reasonable classifiation in respect of the members of the State cadre
who were in existence on October 1, 1957, the Rules, in so far as they
discriminate between the petitioners and the teachers who have been
appointed after October 1, )957 in the vacancies of provincialised posts
would be bad under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitμtion are not merelyconcerned to see whether
broad justice is done en-=sse. They are also concerned with the right •
of an individual not to be dicriminated against.
[663A-C; 661HJ
State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, [1963]
Supp,
Keshav Mills Co. lJJd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.
908, referred to.
2 S.C.R.
169;
[1965] 2 S.C.R.
Per Beg, J, concurring with Palekar, J: The rules of 1961 affect the
interests of the petitioners so detrimentally and result in •uch
patent
injustice to them that it has to be held that the petitioner's complaints
of violation of Artide 16 of the Constitution, are justified. f.667 CJ
It is not enough to hold that there is, in fact, a classification of the
teachers into two cadres by finding !hat "the two services started disSil!)ilarly and continued dissimilarly" fo any respect, or that
me.,-.}.ers
<Jf either of two cadres were for purelv historical
reasons.
difrcreotly
treated in any 'matter whatsoever in the past.
These differences mav
be later relevant for others purposes.
In the present case these Targely
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
accidental dissim,ilarities, which have almost evaporated and disappeared,
A
were put forward only to justify a difference made in the promotional
chances of the two cadres. The qualifications of two groups of teachers
considered "in bulk" or as groups, will not be very material. If a
teacher is highly qualified but he happens, by mere accidents of life, to
be placed in the provincialised cadre, there is no reason why this fact
alone should diminish his promotional chances.
He must be held to
have been unfairly treated when another, with far less experience and
educational qualifications, can or does get preference over him due to
B
equally fortuitous reasons which placed him in the State cadre. Rules
which have such an effect would be struck by articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. {665 B-F]
Whatever m~y be the view of any government on the subject, if it
appears to the ~ourt on an examination of all relevant facts that two
groups of government employees, doing exactly the same type of work,
t
possessing the
same kind of qualifications and competence and experience, ought to be placed in one category having regard to the object
which the classification must serve, the court would be justified in holding that for that particular purpose, they form one class.
The purpose
and the basis of the qualification must be justly and reasonably correlated. !666 C-DJ
·
A division of teachers into two cadres for promotional prospects only
D
is highly artificial, unreal and unjustifiable. The only rational classifi·
cation for such a purpose is one which could be based on merit-cumseniority. If merit and competence are the only relevant consideration for
the purpose of a particular object sought, other differences are not material
for justifying the differences made in promotional chances.
[666E]
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION :
Writ Petitions
Nos.
97
of
1970.
Under Article 32 of the ComtitU'tion of India. for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights.
S. K. Sen, S. C. Manchanda, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and
K. R. Nagaraja, for the petitioner No. 1 (in W. P. No. 97 of
1970).
L. M. Singhvi, B. R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta
and K. R. Nagaraja, for the petitioner No. 2 (in W.P. N@. 97
Of 1970).
E
F
V. M. Tarkunde, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. NagaG
raja, for petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 (in W.P. No. 657 of 1970).
S. K. Sen, S. C. Manchanda, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, and
K. R. Nagaraja, for petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 (in W.P. No. 657
of 1970).
·
Niren De, Attorney General of India, V. S. Desai, R. H.
H
Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in W.P.
No. 97 of 1970 and Respondents.Nos. 1 to 4 (in W.P. No. 657
of 1970).
A
R. L. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Snelat, J.)
613
Mohan Behari Lal, for respondent No. 4 (in W.P. No. 97 of
1970).
V. S. Desai, S. K. Dholkia and Ramasesh, for
respondent
No 36 (in W.P. 97 of 1970) and respondent No. 81 (in W.P.
No. 657 of 1970).
B
Respondent No. 42 appeared in person (in W.P. No. 97 of
c
D
E
1970).
S. K. Dholakia, for respondent No. 47 and other respondents
(in W.P. No. 97 of 1970) and Respondent No. 67 and other
rest><>ndents (in W.P. No. 657 of 1970).
M. L. Lonie/, Urmila Kapoor, R. Khanna and Kam/esh
Bansal, for respondents Nos. 6 to 11, 13, 16 to 19 and 21 •to 34
(in W.P. No. 657 of 1970).
M. C. Setalvad, V. S. Desai and S. K. Dlwlakia, for respondent No. 49 (to W.P. 97 of 1970) and respondent No. 78 (in
W.P. No. 657 of 1970).
The Judgment of J.M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN
REDDY, H. R. K!IANNA AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ. was delivered by
SHELAT, J., D. G. PALEKAR AND M. H. BEG, JJ. gave separate
dissenting opinions.
•
(In Writ Petitioo No. 97 of 1970)
Shelat, J.
On October I, 1957, when the
then State of
Punjab brought about provincialisation of all schools till then run
by the Local Bodies, there were 231 High Schools and 7 62
Middle Schools conducted by the said Local Bodies. There
were at that time 321 headmasters/headmistresses getting a scale
F of pay of Rs. 250-Rs. 350, 294 masters/mistresses getting a
scale of pay of Rs. 250-Rs. 300 and 1, 792 masters/mistresses
getting a lower scale of Rs. 100-Rs. 250. On October 1, 1957,
all the schools together with their existing staff were taken over
by the State Government. As in the ca1e of the primary junior
teachers, it was provided that all these masters/mistresses from
the provincialised schools would be given the same scale of pay
G
and allowances as were given to their counterparts serving in the
Government schools.
According to the petitioners,
the minimum qualifications
required for the appointment of masters were the same for both
the State school5 and those conducted by the Local Bodies. That
H
fact, coupled with the fact that th<;y were to be given the same
scale of pay and allowances, meant that there was no di1ference
between the provincialised masters and those apiJointed subsequent to the provincia!isation between October 1, 1957 and
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
February 13, 1961 when the 1961-Rules for the provincialised
masters and teachers were promulgated, except that those who
were appointed after the date of provincialisation were junior to
them in service. According to the petitiooers, the two categories
of masters, the provincialised and the Government schools masters,
therefore, formed one class since both the categories were given
the same scales of pay, both were Government employees and
both carried out the same duties and performed the same func·
tions in schools which on provincialisation became Government
schools.
The grievance of the petitioners was that Rules of 1961
.divided masters, who for all practical purposes formed one class,
into two arbitrary cadres, the State cadre and the proviincialised
cadre., and through their variJus provisions meted out differential
treatment to those appointed after October 1, 1957 by their being
treated as belonging to the State cadre, although the petitioners
and several others like them were senior in experience than those
recruited after the said date. The 1961-Rules thus created discrimination by dividing the masters into two categories, although
there was no rational basis for such a classification.
As and by way of illustration of such alleged discrimination
the petit!oneFs stated that Petitioner Ram Lal, a trained graduate
(B.Sc., B.T.) was appointed in the District Board's High School,
Rukhi, District Rohtak in 1955. He was confirmed in that post
on September 1, 1957.
Respondent Rajeshwar Parshad was
appointed in the same High School after provincialisation on
May 12, 1958. Though t'1e petitioner Ram Lal was thus senior
to him in
~xperience and possessed the same qualifications,
Rajeshwar had been called for promotion to the selection grade,
while the petitioner was ignored.
Likewise, petitioner Ram
Niwas, also a trained Master (B.A., B.T.), was appointed on
April 28, 1956 in the ers.twhile District Board High School, Asandah, District Rohtak and was confirmed as such on October 1,
1957.
Respondent Dilawar Singh was appointed in the same
school on April 16, 1958. Though, therefore, junior 'to him in
service, Dilawar Singh had been called for promotion to the selection grade only because under the 1961 -Rules he had been placed
on his appointment in the State cadre. In 1965, petitioner Ram
Niwas was transferred to the Govennment High School at Rajlugarh, District Rohtak, where in 1968 he officiated as the headmaster for about six inonths. Yet, two of the appointees recruited
after October 1, 1957, by reason of their being placed in the State
cadre, would be promoted to the selection grade, while the petitioner; though senior to them, will not get such a chance. Being
thus promoted to the higher grade earlier than the petitioner, the
petitioner not only has lost chances of a higher grade but also
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
R. L. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Shelat, !.)
615
chances of being appointed headmaster in future. Such a result
has come about as a con~equence of (a) splitting oi the service
into two cadres (b) the provincialised cadre bei:ng made a diminishing cadre, ~nd ( c) by transfer of posts falling vacant in the
provincialised cadre to the State cadre.
The complaint of the petitioners was that as a result of the
implementatiOill of the 1961-Rules (a) all State schools masters
appointed before October 1, 1957 have been promoted to the
selection grade, and (b) masters appointed after that date, though
junior in service than the provincialised masters, have got quicker
chances of being promoted to the selection grade than their
counterparts in the provincialised schools. The anomaly of such
differential treatment was that though in some cases provincialised
masters, by reason oi their longer experience, have been called
upon to officiate as headmasters, yet when it came to the promotion to the selection grade, those who were junior to them in
service but were placed in the State cadre as a result of the said
Rules, have been called earlier for being promoted to the higher
grade.
On the ground that the splitting of the service into two
artificial cadres giving rise, a~ aforesaid, to differential treatment
to the two categories of masters, the petitioners challenged also
the validity of two memos, dated February 20, 1968 and
March 3, 1970, issued by the Director of Public Instruction, under
which selection from amongst the meinbers of the State cadre for
promotion to the selection grade was proposed. These proposals
are for those deemed to have ~n appointed in that cadre between October 1, 1957 and February 13, 1961 although they were
posted in the provincia!ised schools. The grievance was that although serving in the same schools; the working of the 1961-Rules
has enabled those junior to the petitioners to get better and
quicker promotional chances to the detriment of the petitioners'
interest. For reasons almost identical to those taken in the junior
teachers' writ petition No. 657 of 1970, the petitiOl!lers claim
that the 1961-Rules, as also the said memos should be declared
invalid and the respondent-State should be c~mpelled to treat the
petitioners and those others in a like position as senior to all the
masters appointed subsequent to their appointments.
As in the case of the petition by the junior teachers, the basis
of the present writ petition is that both these categories of masters
formed one class prior to February 13, 1961, but that the Rules
of 19.61 .sp~it up arbitrarily that class into two cadres resultin~ in
the d1scnmmatory treatment to those placed in the provincialised
cadre and giving a differential treatment to those placed in the
State cadre. The respondent-State denied that basis and pointed
out th!'lt on October 1, i957, when provincialisation came into
operallon, there were State schools teachers and masters who were
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
governed by 1955-Rules made under Art. 309 of the Constitution.
These Rules did not apply to those who were taken over
to the Government service from the provincialised schools and
for whom rules were yet to be made and which rules were ultimately made and promulgated on February 13, 1961. Thus, the
two categories of masters were separate, and therefore, there was
no question of one class of employees split up by the 1961-Rules
into two categories.
The Government's plea was that the fact
that the two categories of masters received the same scales of pay
and allowances or that they did the same kind of work or were
even transferable from one type of school to another made no
difference to the actual fact that they belonged to two separate
categories and were never fused into one class. In fact, even after
provincialisation was brought about, the provincialised masters,
until January 22, 1960, were not transferable w the State schools.
Since the 1955-Rules did not apply to the provincialised masters,
and the two categories of masters were not at any stage fused
together, separate rules had to be made for them and conditions
of service for them had to be laid down after they were taken
over to the Government service
In framing the new rules, the
Govemment expressly provided that the provincialised masters
and teachers, should form a separate cadre, which cadre should
be a diminishing one which would ultimately vanish leaving the
State cadre alone in the. Government Educational service.
Co.,-
sequrntly, when vacancies foll and new teachers and masters
were appointed, recruitment was made under 1955-Rules, and as
laid down in those Rules, by the Subordinate Services Selection
Board. Respondents 4 to 236, recruited after October 1, 1957,
were, therefore, deemed to have been taken in the State cadre
under 1955-Rules and their conditions of service were governed
by those Rules.
That being so, even though these masters appointed in State
cadre were posted and served in the provincialised schools, it
made no difference to the fact that the two categories of teachers
and masters were distinct and were governed by different sets of
rules which laid down conditions of service obtainable to them.
Therefore, the mere fact that a master from the State cadre was
posted or transferred to a provincialised school did not mean that
he should be governed by the Rules governing the provincialised
cadre or vice versa. The respondent-Government denied that
discrimination resulted either as a consequence of the two categories being retained as distinct categories, or by the appointments after October 1, 1957 of new masters and teachers in the
~tate cadre, or by the provision of transfer of posts from the provincialised cadre to the State cadre in the 1961-Rules. If as a
result of the working of these Rules the number of posts in the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
H
R. L. WADHWA v. HARYANA (She/at, J.)
617
provincialised cadre gradually decreased with a corres~ding
rise in the number of posts in the State cadre and posts m the
selection grade also underwent a similar variation, it was due to
the decision taken by the Governmeint to make the provincialised
cadre a diminishing one.
But the Government was not bound
to combine the two categories into one class, 1nor was it not
entitled to make separate rules for the provincialised masters who
were takeh over to the Government service particularly since the
Government was confronted with several difficult problems in
adjusting and fixing inter seniority of the members of the two
categories.
Since the two categories were governed by different.
sets of rules and conditions of service obtainable thereunder, each
having its own selection grade, evP,n if a member of one cadre got
a promotional chance in his own cadre earlier than a member in
the other cadre, even though the latter may be junior in service
than the former, that did not mean that there was any discriminatory treatment to one against the other. The reason is that the
two belong to different cadres, are governed by different sets of
rules and conditions of service and are entitled to promotional
chances within their own respective c?dre.
According to the respondent-State, ir would be erroneous to
assume that a person appointed during the period between October 1, 1957 and February 13, 1961 was junior to a person in the
provincialised cadre since the former did not belong to the provincialised cadre to which the latter belonged, and the seniority
of ·each was governed by the position he occupied in his own
cadre. Likewise, the promotional chances which each would be
entitled to depended upon his own position in his own cadre. The
fact again was that a person in the State cadre might obtain promotional chances earlier than his counterpart in the provincialised
cadre by reason of the provincia!ised cadre being made a diminishing cadre, a decision to -make it so being within the power of
the Government. For, the Government was not bound to retain
the strength of either of the two categories constant or to make
new appointments in the provincialised cadre when vacancies fell
therein.
The two categories being thus separate from the very inceptioo and they not having been fused into one integrated class at
any stage, there was no question of the Rules of 1961 having
brought about any arbitrary classification by solitting up any such
integrated class into two or providing differential treatmoot or any
undue or illegitimate preference being giveh to one against the
other.
It is not necessary to dilate ~ny further over the contentions
raised bly the petitioners since they go over substantially the same
S-I 152SupCI/73
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l s.c R.
grounds a;; were taken in the teachers petition. Therefore, the A
reasons given by us for our decision in the teaching petition must
also govern our decision in this petition.
In our vi~w. this petition must fail for the reasons stated by
us in our judgment in that writ petition and has therefore to be
dismissed.
As in that writ petition, there will be no order as to
costs.
B
(In writ Petition No. 657 of 1970).
Shela!, J. This petition is by four primary school teachers
serving in what ate called "the provinc1alised schools", i.e., schools
run prior to October l, 1957 by Local Bodies but taken over by
the then State of Plliiljab with effect from October 1, 1957. The C
petition challenges the validity of (a) the Punjab Educational
Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class ill Rul.es, 1961; (b) the
letter dated January 5, 1968 by Haryana Government to the
Director of Public Instruction communicating its decision for
revisi0n of pay scales and prescribing two grades of teachers with
effect from December 1, 1967, i.e., ordinary and selection grades,
in the proportion of 85: 15; (c) letters dated March 18, 1968,
D
April 21, 1969 and August 5, 1969 granting with
eff~t from
December 1, 1967 selection grade to the respondents, all in State
cadre though actually serving in provincialised schools in Gurgaon
District; and ( d) the joint seniority list of the provincialised
teachers in Gurgaon District and the final list of teachers in
Ambala Division in so far as respondents 6 to 96 are shown in
E
the Ambala Division Seniority List.
All the four petitioners are Matriculates Trained teachers lllld
were respectively appointed in the former Local Bodies s~nools
on November 29, 1956, October l, 1955, May 10, 1951 and
September'l4, 1957. Respondents 6 to 36 were originally teachers
in schools conducted by Nai Talim Sangh run with Central GovF
emment funds by the Faridabad Town Development Board, which
schools, together with their staff, were taken over by tl:e then
State of Punjab with effect from October 1, 1957. Respondents
37 to 96 were appointed on and after July 16, 1959 and posted
in schoojs which were provincialised as stated above, and therefore, junior in service to the petitioners and several others appointG
ed in Local Bodies schools prior to their 11rovincialisation.
Briefly stated, the petitioners' case wa11that prior to October 1,
1957 when the thon State of Punjab provincialised the primary
schools there were mainly two types of schools, viz., (a) schools
run by District and Municipal bodie!, and (b) Government
schools, besides of-course the Nai Talim Sangh schools and the
schools in Pepsu area which had merged in the State in 1956. As
H
a result of the Govemment talting over class (a) schools, all primary schools throughout the State became Government schools
\
I
R. L. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Shelat,1.)
619
.A
and the teachers serving therein became Government employees.
According to the petitioners, the effect of provincialisation of these
schools was that all teachers henceforth were brought into a
common service, performing the sam;; functions and duties under
the same authority, viz., the State's Education DeJ?artment. Teachers appointed after October 1, 1957 were posted m both the types
B of schools and were naturally junior to those appointed earlier in
the schools run by the Local Bodies.
The impact of provincia!isation was that all of a sud den, as
from October 1, 1957, about twenty thousand and more teachers
became gove=ent servants. The very first problem arising from
this impact was how to fix (a) inter seniority of teachers ~erving
C
till then in the provincialised schools in different districts, and
(b) inter seniority between the provincialised teachers vis-a-vis
the Government schools' teachers.
On February 13, 1961, the Government published the Punjab
Educational Service (Provinc1a!ised Cadre) Class ID Rules, 1961
under Art. 309 of the Constitution. These rules distinguished the
D provincialised teachers as teachers in provincialised cadre and the
rest in the State cadre. Service for the purpose of these Rules
meant the Punjab Educational (Provincialised Cadre) Class ill
Service. (R. 2). These rules were based on the principle of the
Provi:ncialised Cadre being a diminishing cadre.
The principle
was that this cadre as time passed would gradually diminish in
E
the number of posts ultimate.ly becoming extinct within about 30
years, so that, at the end of that period there would remain only
the State cadre in the field. In pursuance of that principle, r. 3 (i)
provided that all posts created for aJily provincialised school subquent to its being taken over by the Government shall not constitute part of the service, i.e., provincialised cadre, but will be borne
F
on the State cadre. Rule 3 (ii) then provides as follows:
G
H
(a) All such posts of Headmasters as well as of
masters or teachers, in selection grades of the service,
as were vacant on October 1, 1957 shall continue to be
borne on the service but an equal number of posts in
ordim\ry pay scales in the relevant cadres of the service
falling vacant as a result of the promotion to the posts
of Headmasters, Masters and teachers in the selection
grade shall be transferred to the State cadre.
(b) All such posts of masters and teachers. in ordinary pay scales of the service, as were vacant on October 1, 1957, shall be transferred to the State cadre.
3 (iii) . The posts in various cadres of the Service
falling vacant due to the normal incidence of promo-
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19'73] l S.C.R.
tions, retirements or any other cause subsequent .to the
date oi. provincialisation of local authority schools shall
be adjusted in the following manner:
(a) All vacant posts of masters as w~ll as oi. junior
teachers in the service shall be separately split up into
blocks of. seven and six posts by rotation. All selection
grade posts in the first six vacancies in each block of
seven and first five vacancies in each block of six shall
continue to be borne on the seI"Vice, but an equal number of posts in ordinary pay scales of masters o~ junior
teachers, as the case may bie,. together with other vacancies in ordinary pay scales in each block shall be transferred to the State cadre. The last vacancy in each block
shall be transferred to the State cadre.
Provided that if the last vacancy in the block is not
in the selection grade one other post in the selection
gr11de from within that block shal! be transferred to the
State cadre, and if adjustment within the same blocks is
not possible it shall be made in the next following block
but in no case in any block thereafter · -
( 4) Liability to transfer :-Memb!ers of the service
who are borne on a State wise cadre may be posted in
any Government or provincialised school throughout
the State and members of the Service who are borne on
District wise cadre may be posted in any Government or
provincialised school throughout that district :-
( 5) Confirmaion :-Members of the Service who
were confirmed prior to the provincialisation oi. local
authority schools shall be deemed to have been confirmed in the service :
Provided that such Headmasters/Headmistresses of
High Schools as were officiating or temporary immediately before the provincialisation of local authority
schools shall not be confirmed in the service unless
they qualify such departmental tests as may, from time
time, be prescribed by the Director.
(7) Appointing authority:-All appointments to the
posts in the service shall be made by the Director and
for the purpose of imposing of punishment of dismissal
or removal from service the members of the service holding appointments at the time of commencement of these
rules shall be deemed to have been appointed by the
Director.
'
B
c
D
E
••
F
G
H
·-
'
B
c
D
E
R. L. WADHWA v.