JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:—In this writ petition the petitioners' main grievance is that the teachers in the Medical Colleges and the Dental Colleges (for short, Medical teacher) should have been given the pay scales fixed for them as per the State Government Resolution dated 12-10-1977 with retrospective effect from 1-1-1973 as in the case of teachers in all other faculties of the Universities and their affiliated colleges. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of teachers working in Government Medical Colleges and Government Dental Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner No. 2 is the Associate Professor in the Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur and the petitioner No. 3 is the teacher working in the Government Dental College, Nagpur. 3. It may be seen that the University Grants Commission had considered the question of improvement of salaries of the teachers of the Universities and their affiliated colleges and had recommended the revised pay-scales for them with retrospective effect from 1-1-1973. The recommendations of the University Grant's Commission were accepted by the Government of Maharashtra and as per its Resolution dated 25-10-1977 the revised pay scales were made applicable to all the categories of the teachers in the Universities as well as their affiliated colleges in the State of Maharashtra in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education only. 4. As regards the question of improvement in the pay scales of the Medical Teachers in the Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Maharashtra, there was a demand made by the petitioner No. 1 by its representation dated 17-6-1975 to the Medical Council of India for improving the pay scales of the teachers in the Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra as they were very poor as compared to the pay scales paid to their counterparts in the Central Health Services as well as other teachers in the Universities and their affiliated colleges. After considering the above representation made by the petitioner No. 1 the Medical Council of India, by its letter dated 26-4-1976 addressed to the concerned authorities of the State Government as well as the Central Government, recommended that for ensuring high standards of medical education and research the pay scales which are recommended by the University Grants Commission for the University and the College teachers should also be given to the full-time and non-practicing teachers in the Medical Colleges plus that some non-practicing allowance should be paid to them. The condition was, however, imposed as is clear from the subsequent letters of the Medical Council of India dated 18-9-1976 and 6-12-1976 that the teachers in the Medical Colleges should be whole-time and non-practicing teachers. It is pursuant to the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India that the State Government revised the pay scales of the teachers in the Medical Colleges and the Dental Colleges by its resolution dated 12-10-1977. However, the pay scales were revised with effect from 1-10-1977 and not from 1-1-1973 as in the case of the teachers in the other faculties of the Universities and their affiliated colleges. 5. The grievance of the petitioners thus is that there is no rationale in not giving effect to the pay scales given to them under the resolution dated 12-10-1977 with effect from 1-1-1973 and giving the same from 1-10-1977 only. The contention thus is that there is discrimination practised by the respondents violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (for short, “the Constitution”) in not giving retrospective effect from 1-1-1973 to the pay scales of the teachers only in the Medical and Dental Colleges when in all other faculties the pay-scales are given effect to retrospectively from the aforesaid date. 6. In its return the principal plea of the State Government is that the State Government has given the pay scales with effect from 1-1-1973 in the case of such faculties in which then Government of India had agreed to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. 6. In its return the principal plea of the State Government is that the State Government has given the pay scales with effect from 1-1-1973 in the case of such faculties in which then Government of India had agreed to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. The submission, therefore, made on behalf of the State Government when the petition was heard on the previous date was that since the Central Government did not agree to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in the case of the teachers in the Medical Colleges the retrospective effect was not given in their cases from 1-1-1973. It is thus clear from the stand taken by the State Government that if the Central Government were to bear the burden to the extent of the 80% of the liability for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979, it would have no objection for giving retrospective effect to the revised pay scales of the Medical teachers w.e.f. 1-1-1973. However, when this case was heard previously, there was no appearance on behalf of the Central Government although it was a party to the petition. We had, therefore, called the Standing Counsel of the Union Government and had directed him to file the say of the Union of India on the question why in the case of Medical teachers the Union of India did not accept the liability to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 as in the case of the teachers in the other faculties. The Union of India has thereafter filed the return in which the principal plea raised is that the Government of India had not undertaken any liability to bear any expenditure not only in regard to the Medical teaches but in regard to the teachers in Agriculture and Veterinary Science College and the Engineering Colleges also. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has however controverted the above factual averments made in the return filed by the Union of India and has urged that except in the faculty of Medicine, the Union of India has borne the expenditure to the extent of 80% for a period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 on account of revision of pay scales of the teachers in all other faculties therein. In support of his aforesaid submission, he has placed before us the Government Resolutions relating to the pay scales in the case of the other faculties. We have already referred to the Government Resolution dated 25-10-1977 in respect of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education faculties. It is clear from para 5 of the said Resolution that the State Government has given the retrospective effect from 1-1-1973 because for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 the Government of India had agreed to share the financial burden to the extent of 80% for the said period although thereafter the entire liability on account of the additional expenditure due to the revision of pay-scales is to be borne by the State Government. 8. As regards the faculty of Law the Government Resolution regarding the revision of pay-scales of the full-time teachers in Law Colleges is dated 25-9-1978. It also shows that the Central Government that undertaken to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% in the case of revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the law faculty for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. In the Engineering faculty the revision of pay-scales of the teachers is under the Government Resolution dated 10-1-1979. The preamble of the said Resolution shows that on the recommendations of the All India Council of Technical Education the Central Government accepted the liability to bear the expenditure to the extent of 50% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 on account of revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Engineering faculty with effect from 1-1-1973. 9. It may be seen that in the case of the faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences the Government Resolution in regard to the revision of pay-scales has been issued on 17-11-1978. The preamble of the said Resolution however shows that it is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short, “ICAR”) which had agreed to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the Central Government that in the case of the above faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, it is not the Central Government but the ICAR which has undertaken the liability to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. 10. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the Central Government that in the case of the above faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, it is not the Central Government but the ICAR which has undertaken the liability to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. 10. Keeping aside for the time being the question of the teachers of the Agriculture faculty it is clear that in all other faculties except the Medical faculty, the Central Government has undertaken to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. In view of the clear Government Resolutions it has not been possible for the learned Counsel for the Union of India to dispute these facts. These faculties include professional faculties like Law, Education and Engineering apart from purely academic faculties. 11. As regards the Agriculture faculty the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the ICAR is established under the Government Resolution by the Central Government and although it is registered as a society it is fully financed by the Central Government and works as if it is a Department of the Union of India. It is, therefore, his case that ultimately the 80% expenditure on account of the revised pay-scales of the teachers in the Agriculture faculty for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 is borne, by the Union Government itself. In our view the above submission on behalf of the petitioners is well-founded. In the case of (P.K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 541, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the Constitution of the ICAR since the question raised in that case was whether it is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Para 11 of the said judgment in terms supports the above submission on behalf of the petitioners that the ICAR is a Department of the Government of India and although subsequently in was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act it is in fact a Department of the Central Government as it is fully financed by the Central Government and as its budget and expenses are voted upon as part of the expenses incurred in the Ministry of Agriculture. 12. 12. Even the averments in Para (xi) of the return filed on behalf of the Union Government would show that there is central assistance to the ICAR. It is stated therein that one of the responsibilities of the ICAR is co-ordination of Agricultural Education including maintenance of standards for which the Central Government provided central assistance to the State Agricultural Universities through the scheme titled “Establishment and Development of Agriculture Universities,” and under this scheme there is a specific provision to provide central assistance for the implementation of the University Grants Commission's recommendations of pay-scales of the teachers of the State Agriculture Universities as per which the Central assistance was granted by the ICAR to the teaches in the State Agriculture Universities. 13. It is thus clear that even in regard to the faculty of Agriculture it is the Central Government which actually bore the additional expenditure to the extent of 80% fore the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 although the payment was made through the ICAR which, as is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court, supra, is in truth and substance the Department of the Central Government. We must, therefore, hold that in the case of the teachers of all the faculties except the Medical faculty the expenditure to the extent of 80% is borne by the Central Government on account of revision of pay-scale from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. We had, therefore, asked the learned Counsel for the Union of India whether there is any rationale for excluding the Medical faculty from financing the additional expenditure on account of revision of pay scales for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 as in the case of the other faculties. No satisfactory explanation is coming forth from the Union of India. 14. The learned Counsel for the Union of India has, however, referred to us to some correspondence between the Ministry of Education of the Central Government, the State Governments and others to support his contention that the liability was not intended to be undertaken to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in regard to the revised pay-scales of the teachers in the faculties of Medicine, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences and Engineering. To appreciate the above submission, we may first refer to the letter of the Minister for Education, Government of India, dated 30-3-1974 addressed to the Education Ministers of all the States. To appreciate the above submission, we may first refer to the letter of the Minister for Education, Government of India, dated 30-3-1974 addressed to the Education Ministers of all the States. It is stated in the said letter that the question of necessary revision in the pay-scales of University and College teachers had remained under examination initially by the University Grants Commission and subsequently by the Government of India in the context, inter alia, of the claim put forward from time to time by the Teachers' Organizations and the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission on Class-1 services. It is further stated therein that the Government of India has decided to accept the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in regard to the revision of pay-scales of the University and Colleges teachers and that the said revised pay-scales would take effect from January 1, 1973. A copy of the statement made by the Minister of Education in the Lok Sabha is also enclosed along with that letter and from the said enclosure it is clear that the Government of India approved the recommendations of the revised pay-scales of the University and College teachers as referred to in the said document. 15. It is further clear from the letter dated 30-3-1974 itself as well as its enclosure relating to the statement made by the Minister of Education in the Parliament that the revised pay-scales for University and College teachers which were approved by the Central Government would be given effect to from 1-1-1973 on the basis that the Central Government would give financial assistance to the State Governments to meet 80% of the additional expenditure for a period of five years from January 1, 1973. The Central Government had also accepted the recommendations of the University Grants Commissions regarding revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Central Universities which were also operative from 1-1-1973 as communicated to the Secretary to the University Grants Commission by the Director of Education, Government of India, by his letter dated 2-11-1974. However, we are not concerned with the revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Central Universities as such. 16. However, we are not concerned with the revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Central Universities as such. 16. As regards the revision of salaries of University and College teaches of the State Governments, the Director of Education, Government of India communicated to the State Governments that the Government of India was prepared to assist the State Governments who would adopt revised scales of pay for University and College teachers in the States similar to those approved by the Central Government for the Central Universities, i.e. the revised pay-scales recommended by the University Grants Commission to the extent indicated in para 3 of the said letter. In para 3 of the said letter it is mentioned that if the State Governments were willing to adopt revised scales of pay for the teachers in the University and the College (including Government colleges) as indicated in column 3 of the Statement at Appendix III which shows the pay-scales recommended by the University Grants Commission for the teachers in the Universities and the colleges, the assistance to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revised pay-scales would be met by the Government of India, subject to the conditions laid down in the said para. The said central assistance as per condition No. (i) to the extent of 80% was available only for the period from January 1, 1973 to March 31, 1979 whereafter the entire expenditure was to be borne by the State Government as per conditions Nos. (ii) and (iii) and the said expenditure was not to be passed on to the University or the management of the private colleges. 17. It is further mentioned in the said para that the revision of pay-scales as suggested and payment of Central assistance was further subject to the conditions stipulated in Appendix 1 which in fact is heavily relied upon on behalf of the Union of India. In particular, para (i) of Appendix IV, which prescribes conditions for introduction of the revised pay-scales, is relied upon on behalf of the Union of India, as according to the said para the scheme of revised pay-scales was to cover teachers in Universities and Colleges (including Government Colleges) admitted to their privilege, except those of Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Science Colleges, and so far as Engineering Colleges were concerned, a separate circular was to be issued. 18. 18. It appears that it is in the light of the aforesaid condition No. (i) in Appendix IV that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has written to the Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Maharashtra on 18-10-1985 that the Union Ministry of Education was consulted in the matter which had observed that when the scheme of revision of salaries of University and College teachers was conveyed to the State Government it was clearly indicated that the teachers in Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences Colleges would be excluded for its scope. It is further stated in the said letter that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has not issued any orders for allowing the University Grants Commission's scale to the teachers of the Medical Colleges in various States or in Central Government Institutions. 19. In appreciating the above submission, principally based upon the condition No. (i) of Appendix IV referred to above, it may be seen that after 2-11-1974, when initially the revised pay-scales were intended to be made applicable to the teachers in the Universities and Colleges (including Government Colleges) as per Appendix IV, excepting Medical, Agriculture Veterinary Sciences and Engineering Colleges, it appears that the teachers in the said excepted faculties had represented to the competent authorities of the State and the Centre for revision of their pay-scales on the pattern of the revised pay-scales recommended by the University Grants Commission. However, the Government of India, as is clear from the facts narrated above, sympathetically considered the cases of the teachers in the faculties of Agriculture and Engineering only so that they could be given the revised pay-scales retrospectively from 1-1-1973 but not the cases of the unfortunate teachers in the faculty Medicine. 20. However, the Government of India, as is clear from the facts narrated above, sympathetically considered the cases of the teachers in the faculties of Agriculture and Engineering only so that they could be given the revised pay-scales retrospectively from 1-1-1973 but not the cases of the unfortunate teachers in the faculty Medicine. 20. It may be seen in this regard that although initially revision of pay-scales as per the recommendations of the University Grants Commission was not made applicable to the teachers in the faculties of Agriculture, the question of revision of pay-scales upon the same pattern was under consideration of the Government of India and on receipt of confirmation from the ICAR the additional expenditure for adopting the revised pay-scales as recommended by the University Grants Commission to the extent of 80% for a period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 was actually undertaken by the Government of India through its agency or the Department of ICAR, as shown by us in the earlier paras. 21. Similarly, it is clear from the Resolution of the State Government dated 10-1-1979 that on the recommendation of the All India Council of Technical Education to the Government of India, the Government of India under its letter dated 30-9-1975 recommended that the revised pay-scales for the teachers on the same pattern as recommended by the University Grants Commissions should be adopted for the teachers in Engineering Colleges also and that the Central Government would undertake the financial burden to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 for giving revised pay-scales to the teachers in the Engineering faculty also. 22. However, as regards the teachers in the faculty of Medicine, after they made representations to the authorities of the State Government, the Central Government and the Medical Council of India, the Medical Council of India by its letter dated 26-4-1976 wrote to all the State Government and also the authorities of the Central Government referred to in the said letter that the pay structure for full-time teaches in Medical Colleges should be the same as recommended for the University teachers by the University Grants Commission plus that some non-practising allowance as proposed by them should be given to them. It is after such representations were made by the Medical teaches and particularly in view of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India that the State Government issued the Government Resolution dated 12-10-1977 revising the pay-scales of the Medical teachers with effect from 1-10-1977 on the same pattern of the revised pay-scales recommended by the University Grants Commission for the University teachers. But the State Government did not give retrospective effect to the revised pay-scales of the teachers in the faculty of Medicine because as urged by it in this writ petition the Central Government did not accept the liability to bear the expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 as in the case of teachers in the other faculties. 23. It is thus clear that although initially, as per Appendix IV, the revised pay-scales were not to be applicable to the teachers in the faculties of Medicine. Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences and Engineering and, therefore, there was thus no question of sharing any expenditure by the Central Government in regard to them later on in the faculties of Agriculture and Engineering the Central Government had in fact undertaken a share similar expenditure to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 as in the case of revision of pay-scales of teachers in the other faculties. The question thus arises for consideration, therefore, is whether there is any rationale for not accepting the additional financial burden for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in the case of the teachers in the faculty of Medicine only, so as to deprive them of the benefit of the revised pay-scales from 1-1-1973 from which date it was given to the teachers in all other faculties. 24. 24. It appears that while addressing the letter dated 18-10-1985 to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Maharashtra, the Deputy Secretary of the Health Department of the Central Government as well as the Ministry of Education with which consultation was made by her, were unaware of the fact that after the initial application of the revised pay-scales to the teachers of the Universities and the Colleges (including the Government Colleges) in the States except those in the faculties of Medicine, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, and the Engineering which are excepted in Appendix IV referred to above, subsequently the revised pay-scales on the pattern of the revised pay-scales recommended by the University Grants Commission were actually made applicable to the teachers in the faculties of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences and Engineering and the Government of India had in fact shared in their cases the additional expenditure to the extent of 80% for a period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. 25. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the Government of India as per the letter of the Minister of Education dated 30-3-1974 and as per the statement made by him in Parliament enclosed therewith had in fact undertaken to meet the 80% of the additional expenditure with effect form 1-1-1973 for a period of five years without reference to any particular faculties in respect of the teachers of the Universities and the Colleges in the States which adopted the revised pay-scales recommended by the University Grants Commission. It is only in the first instance that as per Appendix IV the revised pay-scales were not made applicable to the faculty of Medicine, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences and the Engineering Colleges. However, later on, as shown above, the said revised pay-scales were in fact made applicable to the teachers of the faculties of Agricultural and Engineering also and the Government of India had shared the burden to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in their cases. 26. However, later on, as shown above, the said revised pay-scales were in fact made applicable to the teachers of the faculties of Agricultural and Engineering also and the Government of India had shared the burden to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in their cases. 26. In these circumstances we are of the view that it is not open to the Government of India to refuse to share the burden to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in the case of the faculty of Medicine only as such a stand of the Government of India would not only be arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust but would be contrary to its representation in its letter dated 30-3-1974 and the statement of the Minister for Education in the Parliament as the liability to share such burden is accepted thereunder by the Government of India. It may also be seen in this regard that the State Government had not made the revised pay-scales applicable in the faculty of Medicine retrospectively from 1-1-1973 only because the Central Government did not accept the additional burden to the extent of 80% from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 as in the case of the teachers in the other faculties to whom also the revised pay-scales as recommended by the University Grants Commission were made applicable from 1-1-1973. 27. A brief survey of the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court would show that the above action of the Central Government in not sharing the additional burden to the extent of 80% for a period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in the case of faculty of Medicine only with the result that the State Government is unable to make the revised pay-scales as recommended by the University Grants Commission applicable to the teachers in the faculty of Medicine retrospectively from 1-1-1973, amounts to discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We may first refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard in the case of (Purushottam Lal v. Union of India)2, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1088. 28. The facts in the abovesaid case would show that although the Central Government accepted the report of the Second Pay Commission it implemented the revised pay-scales thereunder in a particular category of servants from a date later than that recommended by the Second Pay Commission. 28. The facts in the abovesaid case would show that although the Central Government accepted the report of the Second Pay Commission it implemented the revised pay-scales thereunder in a particular category of servants from a date later than that recommended by the Second Pay Commission. The Supreme Court held in para 15 that if the Central Government has made a reference in respect of all the Government employees and if it accepts the recommendations of the Pay Commission it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all the Government employees. It further held that if it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was, therefore, directed in the said case that the revised pay-scales in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission should be made applicable to the petitioners in that case from the date recommended by the Pay Commission. The said decision is followed by the Supreme Court in the case of (Lalji Dube and others v. Union of Inida)3, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 252, in which case also the Supreme Court held that when the President of India accepted the recommendations of the Kalyanwala Committee as per the letter of the Under Secretary of the Government of India, dated 17-11-1953, the non-implementation of the said recommendations in the case of some of the employees only was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 29. The Supreme Court has held in the case of (A.L. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.)4, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1361, that the executive action which results in denial of equal protection of law or equality before law can also be judicially reviewed and can be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness if it does not conform with the basis principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (See para 18). After referring to (E.P. Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu)5, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555, the following basic principles laid down therein under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were referred to with approval in para 19 of the said judgment : “The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? Now what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed, cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore, violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.” In the case of (D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India)6, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 130, also similar principles are laid down by the Supreme Court which found that there was no rationale for applying the revised pension formula to the Government servants who retired after a particular date only and not to those who retired prior to that date. 30. The law laid down by the Supreme Court and the observations made by it in the case of (Ramana v. The International Airport Authority of India and others)7, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628 would be more apt in the facts and circumstances in the instant case. After laying down the rule para 10 that every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness, the Supreme Court has observed in para 12 : “.........The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality .....This proposition would hold good in all cases of dealing by the Government with the public, were the interest sought to be protected is a privilege. It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.” The same view is taken by the Supreme Court in its later decision in the case of (M/s. Kasturi Lal v. State of J. K.)8, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1992. 30-A. Applying the above basic principles to the facts of the instant case it is clear that there is no rationale to the action of the Union of India in not sharing similar financial burden for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 in the case of the teachers in the faculty of Medicine to whom the revised pay-scales as recommended by the University Grants Commission are made applicable by the State Government since the Union of India had shared such a financial burden in the case of the teachers in all other faculties to whom such revised pay-scales were made applicable. 31. It may be seen that the object of the recommendations of the University Grants Commission and its acceptance by the Central Government as it clear from its letters dated 30-3-1974 and 2-11-1974 is that there should be improvement in the pay-scales of the teachers with effect from 1-1-1973 because in all other cases and particularly the Central Government servants the pay scales were revised with effect from that date. It is needless to say that when the object of revision of pay-scales is improvement of pay-scales of the teachers, the date from which such improvement is to be effected should be uniform for all the teachers in all the faculties of the Universities and the affiliated colleges (including Government colleges). When the pay-scales of the teachers in all other faculties are revised from 1-1-1973 the above object of improvement of the pay-scales of the teachers in the Medical faculty cannot be said to be achieved if the revised pay-scales are not made applicable to them also from that date. There is, therefore, no reason why the Union of India should not bear the liability to the extent of 80% on account of the expenditure due to revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Medical faculty from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979. 32. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to a writ of mandamus in this regard against the Central Government. It is, however, made clear that in the State Government Resolution dated 12-10-1977 there are also other categories of posts of which the pay-scales are revised by the State Government. In regard to such posts who are not covered in the class of teachers the principle of bearing additional expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 would not be applicable and since this writ petition is not concerned with their cases it is not necessary to issue any direction to the State Government in regard to them. The instant writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed only in regard to the teachers in the faculty of Medicine. 33. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 3 i.e. the Union of India is directed to bear the additional expenditure to the extent of 80% for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 on account of revision of pay scales of the teachers in the Medical faculty (i.e. in Medical and Dental colleges) as per the Resolution of the State Government dated 12-10-1977 and the State Government is directed to implement the pay-scale in their regard with effect from 1-1-1973. Rule made absolute in the above terms only. The petitioners would be entitled to their costs in this writ petition. The respondents are directed to comply with the judgment within three months from the date of this judgment. Petition allowed.