Judgment S.S.Sandhawalia and JJ. 1. Whether Assistant Research Officers are University teachers within the ambit pf Sec.2(25) and (26) of the Rajendra Agricultural University Act 1971 and the statutes and authoritative instructions framed and issued thereunder? If so, whether they are entitled to the University Grant Commissions new revised scales of pay for all University teachers of the Agricultural University? This is the twin question emerging from this difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench necessitating its placing for an authoritative judgment by this Full Bench. 2. The matrix of facts, which is broadly common, may be noticed somewhat briefly for Kamla Kant Roy and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3622 of 1979. Admittedly there are four Faculties in the Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). These are (a) Agriculture, (b) Veterinary Science, (c) Basic and Humanities, and (d) Home Science. Apart from posts equivalent to post of Professor and Associate Professor has been sanctioned for the University headquarters. The existing category of posts the these--Deans and Directors, Principals of Colleges and Directors of Research Institutes, Professors in Colleges and equivalent staff on research and extension side. Assistant Professors in Colleges and equivalent staff on research and extension side and Lecturers/Assistant Lecturers/Assistant Research Officers and equivalent staff on extension side, 3. The University Grants Commission formulated a scheme of revised scales of pay for the teachers of Agricultural Colleges and Universities after considering the matter in depth. Thereafter the Indian Council of Agricultural Research agreed to extend the benefit of the University Grants Commissions new revised scales of pay to all the University teachers subject to the conditions as mentioned in Annexure 1, dated the 18th of March, 1975. These include the conditions stipulated in Appendix IV thereto. By Annexure 2 dated the 11th of October, 1977, the State Government sanctioned the implementation of the new revised scales of pay in respect of the Rajendra Agricultural University and the Colleges under it. It is significant to notice that though for the first five years the extra financial burden was to be borne in the ratio of eighty per cent by the Commission and twenty per cent by the State, the whole of the same thereafter was to be shifted on the shoulders of the State Government. 4. It is significant to notice that though for the first five years the extra financial burden was to be borne in the ratio of eighty per cent by the Commission and twenty per cent by the State, the whole of the same thereafter was to be shifted on the shoulders of the State Government. 4. However, despite the comprehensive decision aforesaid and the broad guidelines issued thereunder, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on the 7th of November, 1977. took a decision to reorganise the staff pattern and to have only four categories of University teachers. These were (1) Deans/Directors/other equivalent posts, (2) Associate Deans/Professors/other posts of equivalent rank, (3) Associate Professors and other posts of equivalent rank and (4) Assistant Professors and other posts of equivalent rank. A further sub-division into two was made of the last category also. Though at the time of taking this decision there were admittedly 859 posts of various designations under the category of University teachers as defined in the Act yet it was decided to reduce the strength of teaching posts substantially from 859 to 560. The remaining nearly 300 posts were decided to be continued till the incumbents thereof were shifted elsewhere whereafter these posts would be treated to have automatically ceased to exist. In relation to this vanishing cadre, the University wrote to the State Government to grant its approval to an altogether new scale of Rs. 500-900/-. 5. For the purpose of granting of the upgraded scale of pay recommended by the U.G.C. to persons already holding such or corresponding posts, the Syndicate decided that a Screening Committee be formed to determine afresh the eligibility of such persons on the basis of their academic and service records and the qualifications, prescribed by the University. It was decided that the U.G.C. scale should be granted to only such existing teachers including research and extension education workers as were found to be eligible and fit for the scales on the recommendation made by the Screening Committee and not otherwise. It was further decided that even though a person may have the minimum prescribed academic qualifications and was holding the post of a University teacher he would not necessarily be entitled to the U.G.C. scale as a matter of course. It was further decided that even though a person may have the minimum prescribed academic qualifications and was holding the post of a University teacher he would not necessarily be entitled to the U.G.C. scale as a matter of course. If the Screening Commiitee found them unsuitable for the grant of U.G.C. scale of pay then they would continue to hold their posts in the old lower scales of pay until they were reverted to the parent department or transferred elsewhere. The posts thus falling vacant would be deemed to have been abolished with effect from the date they fell vacant 6. Three of the petitioners, who were Assistant Research Officers under the University, filed, Shree Naranyan Roy and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar CWJC 4962 1978. In that writ application they prayed for quashing of that part of Annexures 3 and 5 to the writ application by which the University had ordered that they would be given University Grants Commissions scale of pay only after they had been found eligible by the Screening Committee to be constituted by the University. The writ application was allowed in part. Annexure 3 was not quashed. Only that part of Annexure 5 was quashed which affected the petitioners right to receive the University Grants Commissions scale of pay. This decision was given on 9.5.1979 It was thereafter that the two wiit petitions have been filed, C W J.C. No. 3422 of 1799 on 17.12.79 and C.W.J.C. 3074 of 1979 on 19.12.1979. 7. There are 15 petitioners in C.WJ.C. No. 3622 of 1979 who are Assistant Research Officers at various places, as mentioned in the petition. They were however, either in the scale of Rs. 400-600 or 415-745. They pray for quashing of Annexures 3 and 5. Annexure 3 is the resolution of the Syndicate dated 7.11.77 wherein various decisions were taken including the decision in relation to introduction of University Grants Commissions scale of pay for the teachers of Rajendra Agricultural University. As already stated, the benefit of the said scale of pay was allowed to eligible teachers including Research and Extension Education staff of the University with effect from 1.4.75 on terms and conditions as mentioned in Appendix IV. Annexure 5 is the letter dated 29.9.1978 addressed to all the Heads of Institutions. As already stated, the benefit of the said scale of pay was allowed to eligible teachers including Research and Extension Education staff of the University with effect from 1.4.75 on terms and conditions as mentioned in Appendix IV. Annexure 5 is the letter dated 29.9.1978 addressed to all the Heads of Institutions. In this letter, it is stated that the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 5rh and 7th September, 1978, considered the eligibility of the teachers of the University and their fitness for grant of University Grants Commissions scales of pay. The decision of the Committee is embodied in the enclosed list bearing Nos. 1 and 1(A) to (E) List 1(E) is the list of teachers (as defined in the Act) who were not found fit for the grant of U.G.C. scales of pay. The petitioners are in this list. 8. These cases originally came up before a Bench composed of Mr. Justices Sarwar Ali and Mr. Justice S Narain. Before it a twin contention was strenuously pressed on behalf of the writ petitioners, namely, (1) that the University Grants Commissions scale of pay is applicable to all the teachers of the University. Assistant Research Officers are teachers within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Act. The petitioners, who are Assistant Research Officers, are therefore entitled to the said scale and (2) that this Court has already held that persons similarly situated as the petitioners are entitled to the aforesaid scale of pay. The decision is binding on this Court. The fact that petitioners were not parties to the writ application does not affect the decision or the benefits which necessarily accrue on the basis of the said decision. 9. On the first question Sarwar Ali, J. came to the conclusion that the decision of Syndicate was correct and the petitioners who were Assistant Research Officers, though coming within the ambit of the statutory definition of University teacher etc, were nevertheless not entitled to the benefit of the new scales of pay available to teachers under the revised proposals of the University Grants Commission. On the second question it was held that the judgment in Shree Narayan Roys case (supra) would not be bidding on the parties. It was consequently held that Assistant Research Officers cannot be held to be entitled to the U.G.C. scales of pay irrespective of their educational qualifications. On the second question it was held that the judgment in Shree Narayan Roys case (supra) would not be bidding on the parties. It was consequently held that Assistant Research Officers cannot be held to be entitled to the U.G.C. scales of pay irrespective of their educational qualifications. Collating his conclusion in paragraph 17, Sarwar Ali. J. dismissed both the writ petitions. 10. However, S. Narain, J. was of the view that the ratio decidendi of Shree Naran Roys case (supra) would apply and cover the present case as well and the respondents could not, therefore, repeal the challenge of discrimination and the contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. On a further consideration, however, he took the view that the correctness of the Division Bench decision in Shree Narayan Roy cases (supra) was itself open to serious doubt. He, therefore, opined that both these cases be referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative decision of the question and that is how the matter is now before us. 11. As noticed at the very outset, the threshold question herein is whether the Assistant Research Officers are within the ambit of the phrase "University teachers". At the very outset it may be noticed that this question is not to be viewed in the abstract here. It is to be viewed in the inlaid mesaic of the relevant provisions of the Act and the statutes framed thereunder and decisions of expert bodies like the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the University Grants Commission and the Agricultural Universities. Pride of place herein must obviously be given to the Act and the statutes framed thereunder. What calls for notice is the very definition of teacher and University as spelt out in Clauses (25) and (26) of Sec.2 of the Act in the terms following: 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (25) teacher means a person appointed or recognised by University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension education and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher. (26) University means the Rajendra Agricultural University established and incorporated under Sec.3. Now plainly enough Clause (25) is indicative of the clear legislative design to give an expanded meaning to the word teacher for the purposes of the Act and the things done subservient thereto. (26) University means the Rajendra Agricultural University established and incorporated under Sec.3. Now plainly enough Clause (25) is indicative of the clear legislative design to give an expanded meaning to the word teacher for the purposes of the Act and the things done subservient thereto. The very purpose of defining the word teacher in a widely couched language can leave little manner of doubt that the legisiative intent here was not to constrict the meaning of the word but indeed to give it a wider and broader concept. It is plain that Clause (25) is not envisaging the word teacher in the narrow constricted sense of a person who actually teaches in a class room to his students face to face. The word teacher has been expansively given four distinct connotations here: (i) A person who imparts instruction. (ii) A person who conducts and guides research. (iii) A person who conducts and guides extension education. (iv) A person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher. I am of the view that because of the aforesaid definition and the wide ranging language employed it is unnecessary to labour the point that the Act has given an enlarged and expanded definition of the word teacher. There appears no reason, therefore, to artificially constrict it or confine it to the actual teaching in a class room face to face. It includes within its sweep three distinctly other categories including a deemed fiction of a declaration by the statutes of any person as a teacher even though he may not be remotely performing any duty even remotely analogous thereto. Therefore, reading Clauses (25) and (26) together the phrase "University teacher" is obviously a wide ranging one. 12. Though hardly any doubt would remain from the aforesaid language of the Act itself yet the same view is buttressed by reference to the statutes framed under the powers expressly given by Sec.35 of the Act. Statute 19.15 deals with the election of teachers to the Senate and Clause 1(b) thereof reads as under: Teachers as defined in the Act in Class III (Lecturers and Assistant Research Officers and Junior Research Officers or equivalent rank) shall be placed in another group. Statute 19.15 deals with the election of teachers to the Senate and Clause 1(b) thereof reads as under: Teachers as defined in the Act in Class III (Lecturers and Assistant Research Officers and Junior Research Officers or equivalent rank) shall be placed in another group. The above provision would thus make it manifest that the Assistant Research Officers are expressly referred to as teachers defined in the Act and further categorised for the purpose of service in Class III and are expressly made equivalent to lecturers. 13. Equally reference is called for to Statute 17.1, which is in tabular form showing the qualification, composition of selection committee, appointing authority, etc., for recruitment to technical nontechnical and administrative posts of the University Reference to Serial No. 10 of the said Statute would show that Assistant Research Officers are bracketed as an equivalent and, indeed, identical to Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. The prescribed qualification for all the categories is again identical being a high second class Masterss degree or its equivalent in the subject concerned. Equally the constitution of the selection committee for appointment to all these posts is identical as also the appointing authority, which is the Vice-Chancellor. This is again a pointer if not a conclusive factor for indicating that the Statutes treat Lecturers. Assistant Lecturers and Assistant Research Officers on an absolutely equal footing. 14. Therefore, viewing the matter within the parameters of the Act and the Statutes, it is clear that the Assistant Research Officers would be conducting and guiding research or extension education and thus come squarely within the definition and in the Statutes they have in terms been equated with Lecturers and categorised in Class III of the teachers. Thus, they would come fairly and squarely within the ambit Of University teachers. 15. Now, once it is so held, the consequential question is whether the Assistant Research Officers would be University teachers entitled to the U.G.Cs new revised scales of pay. To my mind the answer herein is again in the affirmative and plainly in favour of the writ petitioners. 15. Now, once it is so held, the consequential question is whether the Assistant Research Officers would be University teachers entitled to the U.G.Cs new revised scales of pay. To my mind the answer herein is again in the affirmative and plainly in favour of the writ petitioners. Now apart from the Act and the statutes, reference may be made to Annexure I, which is the admitted and the authoritative communication of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research addressed to all Agricultural Secretaries and the State Governments declaring the fact that the Council has agreed in principle to extend the benefit of the University Grants Commissions new revised scales of pay for all University teachers subject to the conditions mentioned therein. It is clear therefrom that though at the initial stage central assistance would be available from January 1, 1973 to March 1979, the State Government would bear the entire balance of the expenditure arid would not pass on the liability of any portion thereof to the Universities or the Management of Colleges. Further after April 1, 1979 the State Government would take over the entire responsibility for maintaining revised scales of pay. It is significant that this communication expressly brings within its scope all University teachers without any constriction or further qualifications. Now a reference to Appendix IV of Annexure 1 would further indicate that a somewhat liberal view was taken on the grant of these grades and it was even provided that the existing lecturers in Colleges, who did not at the time of their initial recruitment even possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University, should be given a period of five years to attain those qualifications from the date of their placement in the revised scale. If they were unable to do so during this period they should not be allowed to earn any future increment. This again seems to make plain the intent that even this class would become entitled to the revised grades forthwith subject to the acquisition of qualifications later. Therefore, a true construction of Annexure 1 would indicate that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research bad in terms adopted the grant of revised U.G.C. scales of pay to all University teachers without restriction or qualifications. What then calls for pointed notice is Annexure 2, the communication of the State Government itself to the Accountant General, Bihar. Therefore, a true construction of Annexure 1 would indicate that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research bad in terms adopted the grant of revised U.G.C. scales of pay to all University teachers without restriction or qualifications. What then calls for pointed notice is Annexure 2, the communication of the State Government itself to the Accountant General, Bihar. This again in terms stated that posts of staff engaged in research teaching and extension services, which would include the posts of Assistant Research Officers, would be included in the category of teachers if they have been recognised as posts of teachers in the University statutes. As I have already shown, the Assistant Research Officers are squarely w thin the ambit of University teachers under the Act and the Statute. In the last sentence of this communication the State has expressly agreed to the condition that up to the period of 31st March, 1979 it would bear twenty percent of the financial burden whilst eighty percent would have to be borne by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research but with effect from the 1st of April, 1979 the State Government shall bear the whole expenses to be incurred in this regard. 16. It is, therefore, manifest that the University Grants Commission, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the State Government herein were all unanimously of the view that the Assistant Research Officers would be well within the ambit of University Teachers and entitled to the revised grades. It would thus be hardly tenable for this Court to sadistically exclude them from that benefit. 17. Indeed the matter comes broadly within the larger rule that a construction placed by authorities which have to specifically apply a provision is normally entitled to be given great weight. This is epitomised by a well-known doctrine which has been recognised and affirmed by the final Court in National and Grindiays Bank Ltd. V/s. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay AIR 1959 SC 1048 holding in the terms following: The reason is that in a case where the meaning of an enactment is obscure, the Court may resort to contemporary construction, that is the construction which the authorities have put upon it by their usage and conduct for a long period of time. The principle applicable is optima legum interpres est consuentudo. 18. The principle applicable is optima legum interpres est consuentudo. 18. Turning now to the differing judgments of the learned Judges which have necessitated this reference, it deserves high-lighting that Sarwar Ali, J., has himself taken the view that the A.R.Os. were within the ambit of University Teachers as defined in the Act and the regulations. Yet he proceeded to hold that for the purposes of the grant of the revised grades the expanded meaning expressly given by the statute should be cut down to a narrow constricted import confining University Teachers to those persons who actually imparted instruction in the class rooms only, and in this hierarchy the teachers at the bottom rung would be Assistant Lecturers who at the lowest level could possibly claim the benefits of the revised grades. With the deepest deference, I do not find it possible to subscribe to this line of reasoning As already noticed, if the statutory provisions expressly and the specialised bodies in terms include A.R.Os. within the ambit of University Teachers, there appears no reason why they should be excluded from the benefit of revised grade by a process of technical constricted interpretation. To my mind, to do so would be running counter to the terms of the statutory provisions. Herein, it is plain that the language employed by the statutes should be paramount and the legislative intent must override any other considerations including those of common parlance with regard to the ordinary meaning of a teacher even if it were so. In my view, it is unjustifiable that even where the statute gives an expanded definition and expressly includes persons conducting or guiding extension education, the Court should ignore the same and confine it only to one branch of persons imparting instruction in class rooms alone. In the present case, I find no compulsive reason as to why the wide ranging concept of teacher under the Act and the statutes should be cut down to the marrow, if at all in a situation where it involves the grant of benefit to a class, it should be construed with liberality rather than with such narrow strictitude as to run counter to the legislative mandate itself. 19. This matter equally deserves examination from a larger and broader angle of vision in the context of agricultural education today. 19. This matter equally deserves examination from a larger and broader angle of vision in the context of agricultural education today. In many fields agricultural research and extension education may be of greater and significant value than the mere imparting of instruction in a class room. It deeds no great erudition to find that it is the results of agricultural research and extension work which have brought about the miracle of the green revolution within the country. Apparently, in recognition 01 its importance the Act recognises agricultural research and extension education at least as equivalent to teaching if not placing it at a higher pedestal, therefore, to hold that conducting and guiding research and extension education cannot come within the ambit of teaching, even when expressly so defined under Sec.2(25), would be in a way undervaluing the contribution pf research and extension education in the agricultural field and degrading it inflexibly in comparison to teaching. I am unable to find any reason which would warrant such a result. 20. In fairness to Mr. Basudeva Pasad, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, it must be noticed that he contended forcefully--and, in my view, rightly--that the statute did not define University Teachers as persons who actually teach and, in fact, had given an expanded meaning to the term and it was, therefore, unjustifiable to revert to a constricted interpretation. In the flush of the argument, learned Counsel had sought to contend that herein only one interpretation alone was possible, namely, that the Assistant Research Officers were squarely within the ambit and entitled to the benefit of the revised grade. Without going to this dogmatic length, even if two interpretations were possible, I would still prefer to take the liberal one and in consonance with the statutory provisions and their authentic interpretation by the expert bodies and in favour of the petitioners. 21. In arriving at the conclusion which he did, Sarwar Ali, J., again held that the stand off the State herein would be wholly irrelevant. I am unable to subcribe to this view. As already noticed, the State herein was one of the concerned, if not the most concerned, parties in the sense that after the initial period the whole burden of the revised grade was to be borne by it. I am unable to subcribe to this view. As already noticed, the State herein was one of the concerned, if not the most concerned, parties in the sense that after the initial period the whole burden of the revised grade was to be borne by it. Yet the State in terms accepted and inculded the Assistant Research Officers within the ambit of the University Teachers for the grant of revised grades. Consequently, its stand in this context is not one which can be wholly ignored or given a go by. Equally it calls for notice that Sarwar Ali, J., had observed that if the correspondence or stand of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research had supported the case of the petitioners, that would have been relevant and of considerable importance In the first instance, I am unable to see how any correspondence Inter se could greatly help in a purely interpretative exercise of determining whether A.R.Os. would be University teachers and thus entitled to consequential benefits. However, even this aspect has been further tilted in favour of the writ petitioners. On their behalf, annexure 20 has been placed on record along with a supplementary affidavit and its authenticity has not been challenged by the opposite party This document is a communication by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research itself and a perusal of its content would show that it had accepted the inclusion of Assistant Research Officers within the ambit of University Teachers. This adds yet one more string to the bow of the writ petitioners. 22. Again, Sarwar Ali, J., had also taken the view that the failure to implead the Indian Council of Agricultural Research was fatal to the maintainability of the writ application. Somewhat curiously, no such objection was at all raised on behalf of the respondents before us. Even otherwise, I am inclined to accept the argument of the writ petitioners that since no relief whatsoever was claimed against the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, it was not incumbent on the petitioners to implead it. I am of the view that no infirmity whatsoever attaches to the writ petitions on this score. 23. Lastly Sarwar Ali. J., attempted to distinguish the decision in Shree Narayan Roy and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar, through the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar and Ors. I am of the view that no infirmity whatsoever attaches to the writ petitions on this score. 23. Lastly Sarwar Ali. J., attempted to distinguish the decision in Shree Narayan Roy and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar, through the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4962 of 1978 and though he obviously took a contrary view, he observed that he did not think that the doctrine of precedent would be violated in this case. S. Narain, J., however, held that the ratio in Shree Narayan Roys case clearly governs the present case also but observed that the correctness of the same was highly doubtful, which, indeed, necessitated this reference to the Full Bench. 24. Before us, learned Counsel for the respondents, however, did not lay the least challenge to either the reasoning or the ratio in Shree Narain Roys case (supra) nor did he make any attempt to meaningfully distinguish the said case. On a close perusal thereof, I am unable to find any warrant for making any departure from the view expressed in the said case, nor is it possible to distinguish the same and, indeed, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, was not far wrong in pressing his contention that the ratio of that case squarely governs the present case also and Narain, J., was right in expressly holding so. It seems undeniable that the material facts in the said case were identical and affirming its ratio I would unhesitatingly agree with the under-mentioned crucial observation made therein: If certain pay scale is fixed for a particular category of employees, each employee, so long as he continues on that post is entitled to receive the same scale of pay. The employer cannot pick and choose the same scale of pay (sic). The employer cannot pick and choose between the employees in the same category. If he does so, it would be a clear case of discrimination between the employees similarly situated. The Universitys right to screen its employees for the purpose of fixing their pay scale cannot be denied. But if, even after holding a screening test an employee is permitted to continue on in his old grade, at his old post, he cannot be denied the pay scale available for that post. 25. The Universitys right to screen its employees for the purpose of fixing their pay scale cannot be denied. But if, even after holding a screening test an employee is permitted to continue on in his old grade, at his old post, he cannot be denied the pay scale available for that post. 25. To conclude, the answer to the twin question already posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative. It is held that the Assistant Research Officers are University Teachers within the ambit of the Act and the Statutes and authoritative instructions framed thereunder. Consequenty they are entitled to the University Grants Commissions new revised scales of pay for such University Teachers. 26. Now in the light of the above, the petitioners are plainly entitled to succeed and their writ petitions are hereby allowed. The offending portions of annexures 3 and 5 are quashed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners the revised scales of pay as sanctioned by the State Government under the direction of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research from due date. There will however be no order as to costs in both the writ cases. H.L.Agrawal and Uday Sinha JJ. 27 I agree.