ORDER : 1. The Petitioners are the Professors in L.D. Engineering College. Ahmedabad or in Lakhadhirii College of Engineering, Morvi. In fact Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the Professors in L. D. Engineering College. Ahmedabad and Petitioner No. 4 is a Professor in the College of Engineering which is known as Lakhadhirii College of Engineering, Morvi. All the Petitioners are holding the Post-graduate qualifications in their respective subjects and each one of them has Put in more than ten years experience. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are Professors of Mathematics. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 5 are professors of Physics and Petitioner No. 4 is Professor of Chemistry. Now in these colleges. it appears that. the subjects are divided and they call certain subjects as technical subjects and certain subjects as non-technical subjects. Physics. Chemistry and Mathematics. according to these institutions fall within the category of non-technical subjects. It will not be necessary to enter into any controversy in regard to these classifications for the purpose of deciding this Petition. Every subject would be considered technical or non-technical at a given Point of time. That is not of any importance. It is also not in dispute that the Professors of Mathematics. Physics and Chemistry in these colleges were drawing the same salary as those which were Paid to other Professors who were teaching engineering subjects in these colleges UP to the year 1958. Professors who were teaching Engineering subjects were known as teaching technical subjects. After 1958 the Government of Gujarat wave increments to Professors who were teaching engineering subjects and they chose not to give increments and revise the pay scales of Professors who were teaching Mathematics. Physics and Chemistry, meaning thereby non-technical subjects. That is how the discrimination in Pay started after the year 1958. When Sarela Pay Commission was appointed this fact was brought to the notice of Sarela Pay Commission, but the opinion of the Sarela Pay Commission was that Persons who were teaching mathematics. physics and chemistry cannot be put on par with persons who were teaching engineering subjects. Therefore. when pay scales were revised different Day scales continued. The grievance also continued. This grievance was Put before the Desai Pay Commission. Desai Pay Commission recommended Pay scales of Rs. 1600-2000 for Professors in Engineering subjects in engineering colleges. The same Day scales were recommended for Professors of mathematics. Therefore. when pay scales were revised different Day scales continued. The grievance also continued. This grievance was Put before the Desai Pay Commission. Desai Pay Commission recommended Pay scales of Rs. 1600-2000 for Professors in Engineering subjects in engineering colleges. The same Day scales were recommended for Professors of mathematics. Physics and chemistry in those colleges. The reasons given are in Part I. Volume II at page 72. They start with Para 11. The representatives of the Professors and the State Government were heard. Desai Pay Commission also considered the recommendations of the committee appointed by the State Government under the Chairmanship of Shri S. K. Katrak. then Director of Technical Education for going into several aspects of Technical Education in the State. Desai Pay Commission also considered the observations of Sarela Pay Commission. Ultimately it paragraph 17 after considering everything. Desai Pay Commission observed as under: "The Commission has examined all the aspects of the case very carefully and on the basis of evidence led before it. there is not an iota of doubt that the representatives have built-on a very strong and convincing case for restoration of the Parity in the matter of pay soles with corresponding categories teaching technical subjects. In fact, the term 'technical' should be given widest connotation so as to cover the present categories. The Commission recommends accordingly." The Pay scales were given in Schedule which is on P. 81 and serial Nos. 4 and 14 show the same nay scales for Professors of Civil/Mechanical/Electrical and Applied Mechanic. Engineering. Maths and Physics. 2. The Government of India has also appointed Sen Commission and the Government of Gujarat by a resolution No. MIS-1075-4947-KH dated 23rd November. 1976 which is Produced at Annexure "B" accented the recommendations of the Sen Commission and it clearly appears that what was accepted by Government of Gujarat was that Professors in University will have the following pay scales. Rs.1500-60-1800-200-125/2-2500. Thereafter on 25th October, 1977. Government passed another resolution No. TEM-1174/36329-Gh which is produced at Annexure "C". By that resolution the Government directed after modification that the' nay scales of teachers in Engineering Colleges (except the Regional Engineering College. Surat) should be revised as under subject to the conditions prescribed in Annexures I to V appended herewith. Engineering Colleges Professors Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500. Thereafter in that very resolution there is another heading 'Teachers (Non-technical subjects). The pay scale prescribed as under. Professor. Surat) should be revised as under subject to the conditions prescribed in Annexures I to V appended herewith. Engineering Colleges Professors Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500. Thereafter in that very resolution there is another heading 'Teachers (Non-technical subjects). The pay scale prescribed as under. Professor. Associate Professor. Reader to be re-designated as Assistant Professor- Pay scale Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1600-Assessment-60-1900. In the last column what is mentioned is that existing incumbent may continue their designation if they desire to do so. This resolution led to filing of this Petition and the petitioners' prayer is that the respondents should be directed to treat that the Part of the resolution at Annexure "C" which prescribes a different pay scale of Professors of non-technical subjects as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, void. Further direction is sought to the effect that they may be treated and paid in accordance with the nay scale of Rs. 1500-2500 contained in the resolution at Annexure "C" dated October. 25. 1977 as applicable to all professors in Engineering Colleges irrespective of the subjects which they teach. In short. therefore, what the Petitioners want is that they should be treated as Professors and they must he paid the same salaries which are being paid to other professors who are teaching engineering subjects (technical subjects) in the engineering college and they want a direction that they need not be and cannot be re-designated as Assistant or Associate Professors and the directions contained with the pay scale of Rs. 1200 to 1900 should be treated as void or inoperative against the petitioners. As a consequence thereof they desire that they may be treated as entitled to suitably adjusted salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1500 to 2500 and to nay them arrears of salary on that basis with effect from 1-1-1973. 3. Nov it is not in dispute, as I have stated earlier, that till 1958 professors in engineering colleges whether they were teaching engineering subjects or mathematics, physics or chemistry, they were being paid the same salaries, meaning thereby that their salaries were in the same pay scale. The case of the petitioners is that they impart instructions in their subjects to the students reading for bachelor's degree and also Masters degree. The case of the petitioners is that they impart instructions in their subjects to the students reading for bachelor's degree and also Masters degree. Now it is not in dispute that the engineering colleges to which the petitioners are attached are preparing students for bachelor's degree in various branches of engineering and also for master's degree of those branches. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners impart instructions in mathematics. physics and chemistry in those branches and prepare students in those subjects. The qualifications required to teach these subjects are that they must hold Master's degree and they must hold post-graduate qualifications with experience and it is not in dispute that the petitioners fully complied with the requirements of the recommendations for the posts to which they are appointed and for which they work. In the petition they have stated that in physics paper one applied mechanics is taught. In physics papers the subjects of Acoustics Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Technology Reactor Physics are also taught as part of physics subjects. In mathematics what is important is the application of mathematics to engineering. for example. vibrations, electrical. circuits, head transfer problems are required to be taught etc. 4. Now no affidavit-in-reply is filed. It is also required to be mentioned that in Surat Engineering College there is no distinction in pay scales of professors who teach technical or non-technical subjects. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is that there is discrimination in the some colleges and there is further discrimination in the college run by Saurashtra and Gujarat areas affiliated to respective universities and the colleges are run by the Government on one hand and Surat Engineering College which is affiliated to South Gujarat University run by the Central Government. In Baroda University also in Baroda Engineering College, the professors teaching technical and non-technical subjects are given same nay scales as given in Surat Engineering College. Now these facts are rot in dispute. The learned advocate Mr. Trivedi who appeared on behalf of the respondents submitted that Surat Engineering College is run by Government of India and Government of Gujarat fixed the salaries looking to the grants available from the Central Government and the resolution dated Oct.. 25. 1977 was adopted after considering the letters from the Government of India. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare No. F. 19/36/74-T5 dated 30-11-1974. 2-12-1974 and 30-9-1975. 25. 1977 was adopted after considering the letters from the Government of India. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare No. F. 19/36/74-T5 dated 30-11-1974. 2-12-1974 and 30-9-1975. However, it is not known what was written in those letters as those letters are not produced but what was arguers was that because the Government of Gujarat considered the letters written by the Government of India. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. Government of India is a necessary party to this petition. No such contention was ever raised by filing any affidavit-in-reply. This is after a period of five years when the arguments are heard that this court is told that the Government of India is a necessary party and the reasons given that some officers of Government of India wrote a letter. It is not because of any law or rule made by or adopted by the Parliament. Therefore, merely because the Ministry in Government of India decided to give grant in a particular way for particular college. it does not become necessary that Government of India be joined as a party. Further no discrimination could be made by the State Government at the instance of some officers of Government of India unless the Government of India is empowered to make such discrimination in accordance with some legal provisions enacted by the Parliament. This is not the case of the State of Gujarat. Therefore. to seek protection of some officers of Govt. of India for the purpose of discrimination. discrimination cannot be justified. Constitution of India does not allow discrimination. It only allows discrimination to a certain extent, may by law adopted by the Parliament. Unless the discrimination is permissible under Article 16 by an appropriate law alone such discrimination which is permissible is to be made. Even discrimination cannot be made which is not permissible under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. What is required to be shown is that this type of discrimination is permissible tinder Article 16. Thereafter it is required to be shown that the permissible discrimination is made in accordance with law. rule or established practice by an appropriate classification. Unless that is done discrimination cannot be permitted. What is required to be shown is that this type of discrimination is permissible tinder Article 16. Thereafter it is required to be shown that the permissible discrimination is made in accordance with law. rule or established practice by an appropriate classification. Unless that is done discrimination cannot be permitted. Here what has been done is a Professor is made an Assistant Professor by a resolution and thereafter he is told that he can, if he so chose designate himself if he was a Professor Prior to the issuance of the notification. meaning thereby that if he calls himself a Professor. Government will have no objection but the Government will treat him as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor. Now if the Government treats him as Associate professor. how can be Proclaim to the world that he is a Professor? The crux of the matter is whether the Government by it's own resolution Prescribed different nay scales for Professors teaching Particular subjects in colleges affiliated to one University and Professors teaching the same subjects for the same courses in another college affiliated to different Universities in the same State. If that cannot be made it cannot be made. What is taught in Surat Engineering College is not different from what is taught in L. D. Engineering College or Lakhadhirii College of Engineering. Morvi. By becoming a .graduate or Post-graduate in Surat Engineering College a student does not acquire better qualifications than a student of B. E. or M. E. in L. D. Engineering College or Lakhadhirii College of Engineering. Morvi. Therefore. the students studying in Surat. Morvi or Ahmedabad learn in the same fashion and ultimately acquire the same qualifications. This discrimination cannot be made. This applies to Baroda also. Further in the same colleges engineering subjects cannot be divorced from physics. chemistry or mathematics. Professors teaching Physics. chemistry or mathematics in Engineering Colleges have to teach these subjects bearing in mind that the students are being prepared not for those Particular subject, alone but ultimately for engineering subjects and, therefore, the whole angle of teaching is different. He has to be taught physics, mathematics or chemistry in such a way that he can acquire knowledge in engineering subjects and understand when they attend lectures in engineering subjects as well. He has to be taught physics, mathematics or chemistry in such a way that he can acquire knowledge in engineering subjects and understand when they attend lectures in engineering subjects as well. Now, therefore, these subjects to engineering subjects are supplementary and complementary to one other and one cannot be divorced from the other. Now, therefore if these subjects are so interlinked and taught in a Particular way their pay scales could never be different. This is what the Desai Pay Commission thought and this is what Sen Committee thought. This is what Government of Gujarat thought in regard to Surat and Baroda Colleges. How can they say that this is in different way from other colleges in the same State. It appears that they have thought not from academic angle at all but from the angle of grant. If they consider as engineering college to be a luxury which they cannot afford they may have one college or more that is their choice. It is in accordance with the finance of the State and the Colleges are required to he opened looking to the financial conditions of the State and the necessities of the State in regard to the industries which are functioning in the State. Ultimately all colleges are required to be run for the purpose of traded commerce and industries. Students are ultimately taught not for seeking of knowledge alone. They ultimately are required to go to Bank. Public Sector or big industries and that is why students go to study in different colleges. The State requires good engineers. good doctors, good administrators, good economists. good accountants and good business managers and that is why the education is given and that is why different colleges are opened. Now, therefore, it is ultimately the need of the State which is to be assessed by the State. but once it is assessed and once the institutions are brought into being, it should be given sufficient finance. But the pay scales of the professors similarly situated cannot be different and so soon as the pay scales are prescribed to be different the discrimination starts, violation of the Constitution starts the courts have to interfere. Till then if they establish one or two or more colleges courts have nothing to do. If they prescribe pay scales which are less, courts have nothing to do. Till then if they establish one or two or more colleges courts have nothing to do. If they prescribe pay scales which are less, courts have nothing to do. It is for the professors in the State to raise the dispute and settle the same. But when discrimination starts. the courts have to interfere and that is why the writ petitions are filed. The State has chosen to have Engineering colleges in different parts of the State now they cannot treat the professors in a different way in different colleges or in a different way in some colleges. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners succeed and the respondents are directed to refix the salaries of all the five petitioners and give them the same pay scales as given to other professors who are teaching engineering (technical) subjects in the same colleges. After fixation difference in salaries is required to be worked out and they are to be given pay scales of Rs. 1500-2500 from the date on which they have given those pay scales to the other professors of engineering subjects (technical) in the same college. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today. The difference so worked out may be paid to each one of the petitioners within a period of three months thereafter. If any of the petitioners have retired their salaries may be worked out till they served and pensionary benefits may be worked out in accordance with the salary fixed within the abovesaid period. I hope the respondents will implement this judgment in regard to all the professors teaching mathematics, physics and chemistry in all the engineering colleges of the State so that they may not have recourse to expensive litigation. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.