Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 692 (ALL)

Ram Janm Ram v. State of U. P

1976-10-18

G.C.MATHUR, K.C.AGRAWAL

body1976
JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, Ag. C.J. - There are two branches of the U. P. Subordinate Educational Service (Non-Gazetted). The first branch consists of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. The officers in this branch are recruited under and governed by Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools Service Rules, 1945. The second branch consists of Assistant Masters. There are no statutory rules governing them and their appointments and conditions of service are governed by administrative orders. The Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools have avenue of promotions to the posts in the Subordinate Educational Service - (Inspection Branch) (Gazetted). The Assistant Masters have an avenue of promotions to the posts in Special Subordinate Educational Service (Non-Gazetted). These posts are posts of Lecturer in the intermediate Colleges. The dispute in the present case relates to appointment to the Subordinate Educational Service (Gazetted). This service consists, inter alia, of Headmasters of High Schools and Normal Schools. The promotion to these posts of Headmasters is governed by a G. O. dated December 3, 1947. The relevant portion of this G. O. reads thus: "I am directed to say that the Governor has been pleased to order that 25% of the vacancies among Headmasters of the Government High Schools may be filled by direct recruitment and that the remaining 75% of the vacancies by promotion among the assistant masters of the ordinary and special subordinate Educational Service in the proportion of 2: 1. The Governor has further been pleased to order that vacancies among the Headmasters of the Government Normal Schools be filled as follows : 1. Assistant Master of Ordinary and Special Subordinate Service possessing training qualification in the ratio of 2:1. 40%a 2. Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. 40% 3. Lecturers of Training Col leges. 10%, 4. Direct recruitment. 10%." It will, thus, be seen that 40% of the posts of Headmasters of Normal Schools are to be filled in from amongst Assistant Masters and Lecturers on the teaching side and 40% from amongst the Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools on the inspecting side. 2. Respondent No. 4, who filed the writ petition, was recruited as an Assistant Master in the year 1949. He has Challenged what he calls 40% reservation in favour of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools on the ground that it violates Article 16 of the Constitution. 2. Respondent No. 4, who filed the writ petition, was recruited as an Assistant Master in the year 1949. He has Challenged what he calls 40% reservation in favour of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools on the ground that it violates Article 16 of the Constitution. His complaint is that some Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools, who were appointed Headmasters of Normal Schools in the year 1974, were recruited to the post of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools in the year 1959 and were, thus ten years junior to him. He contends that the appointment of these persons, who are very much juniors :and the non-appointment of respondent No. 4 amounts to hostile discrimination leading to violation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. His contentions found favour with the learned Single Judge, with the result he quashed the G. 0. dated December 3, 1947 and 'directed the Government to consider the claim of respondent No. 4 for promotion garding the 40% reservation in favour of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, two of the Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools, who had been promoted Headmaster of Normal Schools and whose appointments had been challenged by respondent No. 4. preferred Special Appeal No. 246 of 1976. The State Government has preferred Special Appeal No. 301 of 1976. In both the appeals identical questions arise and it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. 3. The real question which we have to decide is whether the provision in the impugned G. O. that 40% of the post of Headmasters of Government Normal Schools will be filled by promotion of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools is discriminatory and offends Article 16 of the Constitution. The decision will turn on the question whether the Assistant Masters and the Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools fall in one class or in two distinct classes. The question of discrimination can only arise if the Assistant Masters and Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools are similarly situated and one is placed by the G.O. in a more advantages position than the other. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are of opinion that the Assistant Masters on the teaching side and Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools on the inspecting side are not similarly situated and that they form two distinct classes. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are of opinion that the Assistant Masters on the teaching side and Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools on the inspecting side are not similarly situated and that they form two distinct classes. The Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools are Governed by statutory rules framed under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, while the Assistant Masters on the teaching side are governed only by administrative orders. The Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools perform inspection work, while the Assistant Masters perform teaching work. The G. 0. of 1947 provides that 75% of the posts of Headmasters of High Schools will be filled by promotion from amongst the Assistant Masters and Lecturers and the remaining 25% by direct recruitment. None of these posts are to be filled from amongst the Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. So far as posts of Headmasters in the Normal Schools are concerned 40% of the posts are to be filled from amongst Assistant Masters and Lecturers of Intermediate Colleges and 40% from amongst Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. Normal Schools are meant for training teachers. The functions of Headmasters of such Schools are primarily administrative and secondarily of teaching. It has not been disputed that the Government could legitimately open the field of eligibility for appointments to the posts of Headmasters of Normal Schools, to Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. The impugned G. 0. prescribed four sources of recruitment to the post of Headmasters of Normal Schools and also provides the number to be recruited from each source. We are unable to accept the arguments on behalf of respondent No. 4 that the impugned G. 0. makes a reservation of 40% in favour of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. There is no general class, which is entitled to the appointment of these posts and, as such, no question of reservation of posts arises. The G. 0. as we have already observed above, prescribes four sources of recruitment and lays down the number of officers that are to be recruited from each source. Since the posts are not exclusively teaching posts, but are mainly administrative posts. we can see no objection to Government fixing a quota of 40% for recruitment from amongst Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. as we have already observed above, prescribes four sources of recruitment and lays down the number of officers that are to be recruited from each source. Since the posts are not exclusively teaching posts, but are mainly administrative posts. we can see no objection to Government fixing a quota of 40% for recruitment from amongst Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. The Assistant Masters and Lecturers of Intermediate Colleges can have no legitimate grievance, as they have been given 75% of the posts of Headmasters of High Schools and 40 % of the posts of Headmasters of Normal Schools. It is a fortuitous circumstance that some Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools, who were recruited later than respondent No. 4, have become eligible for promotion before respondent No. 4. That is probably due to the fact that Assistant Masters and Lecturers of Intermediate Colleges are three times greater in number than Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. In these circumstances, we think that the complaint of respondent No. 4 of hostile discrimination against Assistant Masters and violation of Article 16 is not valid. 5. It may be mentioned that at the time when respondent No. 4 was appointed the impugned G. O. was already in existence and he entered service with full knowledge of the provisions of this G. O. Further in 1950 respondent No. 4 was appointed to the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools but he declined to accept that appointment. It was in his power at that time, when the appointment was offered to him, to get over the ill effects of the impugned G. 0., if any, but he chose deliberately to remain in the post of Assistant Master and to face the consequences. Now 24 years later when he has realised the folly of his refusal to accept the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools, he has challenged the G. O. We do not think that there are any equities in his favour to entitle him to the relief on the ground that the G. O. affects him adversely and is discriminatory. 6. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.