JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned single Judge of this Court dated 10-4-1990, whereby the writ petition of respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the appellant and respondent No. 2 have been directed to provide U.G.C. Pay Scales to the Lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers’ Training College, Jodhpur with effect from 1-1-73 with provision for cash payment with effect from 1-1-76. The arrears of salary for the period 1-1-73 to 31-8-76 have been directed to be deposited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the said lecturers. It has been directed that for the period 1-9-76 to 31-5-80, the arrears be paid in cash in four equal instalments on the basis of 80% of its contribution to be made by the State and 20% of its contribution to be made by respondent No. 2 with effect from 1-6-90, the said lecturers have been allowed U.G.C. Pay Scales along with D.A. on a regular basis. Consequently directions have also been made. Aggrieved, the State has come in equal. 2. At this juncture, we may take note of certain admitted facts, which have not been controverted before us. There are quite a number of Teachers' Training Colleges in the State. Many of these colleges are being run by the Government while others are being run by private institutions. Out of such colleges run by private institutions, there are three colleges receiving grant in aid from the State and respondent No. 2 is one of such institutions. Likewise. Degree Colleges, which undertake undergraduate teaching programmes, are being run in the State some by the Government and others by private institutions, where courses are offered in various faculties. Some such private colleges also receive grant in aid from the State. 3. Respondent No. 2 is running two colleges at Jodhpur viz., (1) Mahesh Teachers' College, Jodhpur (for short M.T. College) and (2) Onkarmal Somani Commerce College (for short Somani College). The first college is a Teachers’ Training College, while the second one is a degree college. 4. Respondent No. 1 before us is an Association of the lecturers teaching in the Teachers' Training College run by respondent No. 2. Its case is that the pay scale of the lecturers in the college on 1-1-1993 was Rs. 375-850. This pay scale was revised to Rs. 4. Respondent No. 1 before us is an Association of the lecturers teaching in the Teachers' Training College run by respondent No. 2. Its case is that the pay scale of the lecturers in the college on 1-1-1993 was Rs. 375-850. This pay scale was revised to Rs. 750-1350 with effect from 1-9-1976 and was further sought to be revised to Rs. 1000-1960 with effect from 1-9-1981 in accordance with recommendations of Beri Pay Commission. However, this revision has not been made. It was pleaded that the University Grants Commission (for short U.G.C.) in its report for the year 1975-76 recommended the revision of the pay scales of the lecturers of Universities and Colleges to Rs. 700-40-1100-50-1600. These scales were approved by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare Govt, of India. The said recommendations of the U.G.C. were accepted by the Government of Rajasthan in regard to all the categories of lecturers in Universities and Colleges except for lecturers in Teachers' Training College whether run or aided by the Government. It was further pleaded that lecturers of Somani College (a degree college) run by respondent No. 2 have been granted U.G.C. Pay Scales with effect from 1-1-73 with provision for cash payment with effect from 1-9-76 but the lecturers of the M.T. College have not been given these scales. It was pleaded that even Research Assistants of University of Udaipur (now renamed as Mohanlal Sukhadia University) were granted these scales on the basis of a decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 39 of 1979 - Dr. Nihal Singh v. State of Rajasthan decided on 22-4-81 . Thus, a hostile discrimination was practised against the members of writ petitioner-Association, even though the Teachers of both the colleges were performing similar duties and were required to possess similar qualifications. It was pleaded that to all intents and purposes Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was pointed out that the Administrative control of the Government of Rajasthan, which was providing grant in aid to both the institutions run by respondent No. 2 was all pervasive. 4. 1 It was also pleaded that both the colleges named above and run by respondent No. 2 have been admitted to privileges of the University of Jodhpur. 5. It was pointed out that the Administrative control of the Government of Rajasthan, which was providing grant in aid to both the institutions run by respondent No. 2 was all pervasive. 4. 1 It was also pleaded that both the colleges named above and run by respondent No. 2 have been admitted to privileges of the University of Jodhpur. 5. It was pleaded that the writ petitioner moved various representations to the Govt, to grant U.G.C. Pay Scales to its members but to no avail, in spite of the fact that U.G.C. itself had admitted that lecturers teaching in Teachers Training Colleges were eligible for grant of U.G.C. Pay Scales. Hence, the writ petitioner claimed grant of U.G.C. Pay Scales by filing the writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises. 6. It may be stated that respondent No. 2 did not oppose the writ petition. It was opposed by the State of Rajasthan which pleaded that U.G.C. Pay Scales were made admissible by the Raj. Government only to lecturers in colleges in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce, Social Sciences and Law Colleges. These scales were not made admissible to teachers in Medical Colleges, Teachers' Training College and Government Polytechnic Institutions. The Beri Pay Commission took this factor into consideration and recommended revised of the pay scales of lecturers of the colleges of the said categories. In the Grant in Aid Rules provision was made that scales of pay and allowances of staff of such institutions shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff of similar category in Government Institutions. Hence, the lecturers in all aided Teachers' Training Colleges were entitled to same pay and allowances, which were admissible to lecturers in Government run Teachers' Training Colleges. By implication, a stand was taken that the lecturers in all Teachers' Training Colleges formed one class and all the lecturers in this class were getting the same pay scales and allowances. The revised pay scales of these lecturers is Rs.1000-30-1300-40-1500-50-1800-60-1860, which is actually a better pay scale than the U.G.C. Pay Scales. By implication, a stand was taken that the lecturers in all Teachers' Training Colleges formed one class and all the lecturers in this class were getting the same pay scales and allowances. The revised pay scales of these lecturers is Rs.1000-30-1300-40-1500-50-1800-60-1860, which is actually a better pay scale than the U.G.C. Pay Scales. It was pleaded that even if it was held that the teachers in Teachers’ Training Schools were entitled to U.G.C. Pay Scales, the writ petition could not be maintained because eighty per cent of the additional burden due to these pay scales was to be borne by Union of India and the U.G.C. and they were not parties to the petition. It was also pleaded that there being no relationship of master and servant between appellant and members of respondent No. 1 Association, appellant was not liable to grant any scales. 7. The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder wherein it tried to distinguish the teachers of Government run Teachers' Training Colleges and the members of the writ petitioner and on this count urged that they could not be said to form one class. It was further pointed out that even Beri Pay Commission recommendations did not bring lecturers in Teachers’ Training Colleges at par with U.G.C. Scales. A comparative chart was filed in this regard by the writ petitioner. It was further pleaded that U.G.C. itself had mentioned in Annexure-5 that U.G.C. scales were admissible to lecturers Teachers’ Training Colleges. It was not denied specifically that additional burden by grant of U.G.C. Scales was to be borne to the extent of 80% by the Union of India and U.G.C. but it was denied that Union of India and U.G.C. were necessary parties. It was stated that writ petitioner was moving an application, by way of abundant caution, to implead Union of India and U.G.C. However, such application was never moved and Union of India and U.G.C. are not parties to the list. It was not alleged that members of respondent No. 1 were in any way employees of the appellant. 8. Before learned single Judge, it was not disputed that Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was not alleged that members of respondent No. 1 were in any way employees of the appellant. 8. Before learned single Judge, it was not disputed that Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, it was urged before the learned single Judge that equation of posts and equation of pay were matters to be decided primarily by the Executive Government and the expert bodies like Pay Commission etc. and the Court should not interfere in such matters. It was contended that lecturers in Teachers' Training Colleges formed one class and discharged duties dissimilar to lecturers in undergraduate (degree) colleges and hence no comparison could be made between lecturers belonging to writ petitioner-Association and lecturers teaching in Somani College. However, the learned single Judge was of the view that nature of duties of the members of writ petitioner-Association were similar and required similar qualifications as the teachers serving in the Somani College and hence they were entitled to parity in the matter of pay scales. Learned single Judge distinguished the class of teachers serving in Government Teachers' Training Colleges on the grounds viz., (1) The employer of this latter category of teachers was the Government while the lecturers in M.T. College served under a private employer, (2) Lecturers in Government Teachers' Training Colleges have various promotional avenues in the Department itself. He, therefore, held that the lecturers of M.T. College stood on a different footing and were entitled to grant of U.G.C. Pay Scales at par with lecturers of Somani College. On these premises, the petition was accepted and the relief prayed for was granted. Aggrieved, the State has come in appeal. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General has challenged the judgment of the learned single Judge on a number of counts. He has urged that the writ petitioner had failed to establish that any hostile discrimination was practised against its members by not granting them U.G.C. Scales. He has urged that the judgment of learned single Judge suffers from serious legal infirmities and deserves to be set aside. As against this, learned counsel for respondents support the judgment of the learned single Judge and urged that this Court while sitting in appeal should not lightly interfere with the judgment of learned single Judge, which is based upon sound reasoning. 10. As against this, learned counsel for respondents support the judgment of the learned single Judge and urged that this Court while sitting in appeal should not lightly interfere with the judgment of learned single Judge, which is based upon sound reasoning. 10. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions. We may readily state that we are conscious of the limitations on our powers while hearing this special appeal. We are aware that we should not interfere with the judgment of learned single Judge in a light manner. Even if two views are possible, this Court would not interfere unless the judgment of the learned single Judge is vitiated due to gross error of law or he had failed to take note of material (SIC) ikMttice or took a view, which could not has been at all taken upon the material available on record. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 cited certain rulings on this aspect of the matter but we have not referred to them because we are entirely in agreement with him on this aspect of the matter. 11. We may readily state that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has been accepted on all hands as a sound doctrine, to be invoked by employees doing similar work. The learned single Judge has admirably reviewed the case law on the point and on principle, we can have no disagreement with him that persons discharging similar functions and having similar qualifications, must get equal pay. 12. But, there are two crucial and vital factors, which escaped the attention of the learned single Judge altogether. These factors vitiate the judgment of the learned single Judge altogether as they go to the root of the matter. Firstly, the apex Court has laid down in a catena of judgments that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts. In such matters, this Court does not sit in appeal over the value judgments of expert bodies like Pay Commission etc. Firstly, the apex Court has laid down in a catena of judgments that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts. In such matters, this Court does not sit in appeal over the value judgments of expert bodies like Pay Commission etc. In Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 1899 , the apex Court observed : “While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not an appellate authority.” In Randhir Singh v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879 : (1982 Lab IC 806) , the apex Court observed : “Equation of posts, and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts.” In this context, the learned single Judge failed to take into consideration that the recommendation of the U.G.C. made in 1975-76 were examined by the Beri Pay Commission and the august body in its report (1979-81), after making in depth study of the pay structures obtainable in Rajasthan did not recommend grant of U.G.C. Scales to teachers in Teachers’ Training Colleges. It observed that U.G.C. pay scales had distorted the balance and proportion of the picture of pay structure of Rajasthan (page 248 11-3-47). It was in this background that U.G.C. scales were not made available to teachers in certain categories of colleges. The learned single Judge did not examine this aspect at all.In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19 : (1989 Lab IC 1146) , the apex Court observed (at page 1152 of Lab IC) : “The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous considerations." (Emphasis ours) 13. They would be best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous considerations." (Emphasis ours) 13. Secondly, the learned single Judge failed to notice that the writ petitioner had neither alleged nor proved that the teachers in the M.T. College were qualitatively discharging the same responsibilities, as were being discharged by teachers in the Somani College. It may be stated that it was not sufficient for the writ petitioner to allege and prove generally that teachers in M.T. College and teachers in Somani College possessed similar qualifications or discharged similar duties. It was imperative for the writ petitioner to allege and prove that qualitatively also the performance of duties of lecturers in M.T. College and lecturers in Somani College were the same. 14. In State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya, AIR 1993 SC 286 , their Lordships of the Apex Court observed (at page 291) : “The material above mentioned goes to show that (a) the qualifications prescribed for the lecturers in the Higher Secondary Schools are the same; (b) service conditions of both the categories of lecturers are same; and (c) that the status of the schools is also the same. There is, however, a conspicuous absence of any clear allegation and/or material suggesting that functions and responsibilities of both the categories of lecturers is similar. Much less is there any allegation or proof that qualitatively speaking, they perform similar functions. It is not enough to say that the qualifications are same nor is enough to say that schools are of the same status. It is also not sufficient to say that the service conditions are similar. What is more important and crucial is whether they discharge similar duties, functions and responsibilities.” (Emphasis ours)The aforesaid observations and particularly the observations “much less is there any allegation or proof that qualitatively speaking, they perform similar functions" go to show that to claim parity, the writ petitioner was required to plead and prove that its members, qualitatively speaking performed functions similar to that of the teachers of the Somani College. 15. 15. We may concede that the writ petitioner succeeded in showing in a general manner that the lecturers in the M.T. College and in the Somani College were required to possess similar qualifications and were also required to engage in teaching. However, the basic question which remains to be answered is whether the lecturers in M.T. College qualitatively performed similar functions and discharged similar responsibilities as lecturers in Somani College. At cost of repetition, we may say that the writ petitioner did not specifically allege or prove that teachers in the M.T. College were qualitatively performing the same duties as the teachers in the Somani College. 16. We may mention that there is neither pleading nor an iota of evidence to suggest that qualitatively also the duties Performed by the lecturers of the two institutions are same or similar. Lecturers of M.T. College are teaching students, who are already graduates while lecturers in Somani College are engaged in teaching under-graduates, a situation very candidly admitted before us by Shri Mridul. Faced with this situation, Shri Mridul contended that lecturers in Law College were getting U.G.C. Pay Scales and such lecturers also undertake teaching to postgraduates and hence the teachers of M.T. College could not be denied U.G.C. Pay Scale on the ground that they were teaching only under-graduate students. To our mind, the contention is fallacious. Equality in matters of pay could he claimed only when the employees are serving under the same master. It has not been pointed out to us that respondent No. 2 was running any Law College, lecturers whereof had been granted U.G.C. Scales. To our mind, respondent No. 1 in this case did not lay at all any foundation of fad for showing that lecturers in VI.T. College and lecturers in Somani College discharge similar functions qualitatively. Apparently, they may be required to have similar qualifications and similar duties of leaching to perform, but it was imperative that they also establish that qualitatively also, similar duties were being performed. 17. The discussion of this aspect of the matter in the judgment of the learned single Judge is to be found at pages 9 and 10. Apparently, they may be required to have similar qualifications and similar duties of leaching to perform, but it was imperative that they also establish that qualitatively also, similar duties were being performed. 17. The discussion of this aspect of the matter in the judgment of the learned single Judge is to be found at pages 9 and 10. The relevant observations are as follows : “It will be pertinent to mention here that the lecturers of Shri Onkarmal Somani Commerce College teach under-graduates (commerce) whereas the lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers' College teach graduates, who want to get degree of B.Ed. and M.Ed. and, therefore, it cannot be said that the lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers' Training College are performing functions which are inferior in quality to the functions that are being performed by the lecturers who teach under-graduates in any subject in any University or the Colleges whether run by the Govt. or run privately while receiving Grant-in-Aid from the Govt. Even the educational qualifications required for their selection are also similar. As stated above. Shri Mahesh Teachers' College and Shri Onkarmal Somani College are run by Shri Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan and they are affiliated to the University of Jodhpur. However, the lecturers of Shri Onkarmal Somani Commerce College, who teach undergraduates (commerce) have been granted U.G.C. Pay Scales of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from 1-1-1973 with provision for cash payment from 1-9-1976 whereas the lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers’ College who teach graduates, who want to get degree of B.Ed. and M.Ed. have been denied the U.G.C. pay scales, which is a clear cut denial of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 700-1600 with effect from 1-1-1973 with provision for cash payment from 1-9-1976 whereas the lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers’ College who teach graduates, who want to get degree of B.Ed. and M.Ed. have been denied the U.G.C. pay scales, which is a clear cut denial of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The further discussion on this aspect is to be found at page 19 of the judgment of the learned single Judge and the relevant observations are as follow : "In this case, the respondent No. 2 Shri Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan itself runs two colleges : one Shri Onkarmal Somani Commerce College and the other Shri Mahesh Teachers' College and the lecturers of Shri Onkarmal Somani Commerce College have been provided UGC pay scales whereas the lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers' College have been denied UGC pay scales and, therefore, the denial of providing UGC pay scales to the lecturers of Shri Mahesh Teachers' College is discriminatory because the nature of duties and functions performed by the lecturers of both these colleges are similar." The further discussion on this aspect is contained at page 23 of the judgment of the learned single Judge and the relevant observations are as follows : “So far as the third contention is concerned, the UGC itself has recommended vide its communication Annexure-5 that the lecturers of the Teachers' Training College are entitled to the UGC pay scales and, therefore, that argument of Mr. Joshi has no legs to stand." A reading of the aforesaid observations, individually and collectively, does not show that the learned single Judge was alive to the situation that the writ petitioner had failed to plead or prove that qualitatively the duties of the teachers of M.T. College were at par with teachers of the Somani College. Post-graduate teaching is definitely not similar to undergraduate teaching, which may require different skills to handle the impressionable youth, on the threshold of adolescence. Students in a post-graduate college are definitely more mature than in an undergraduate course and would need a different handling, than the students in a degree college, imparting under-graduate education. 18. It has not been denied that teachers in Somani College teach under-graduate students, while teachers in the M.T. College teach post-graduate students. In Somani College, where under-graduates courses are run the teachers have to deal with most of adolescent students. 18. It has not been denied that teachers in Somani College teach under-graduate students, while teachers in the M.T. College teach post-graduate students. In Somani College, where under-graduates courses are run the teachers have to deal with most of adolescent students. The teachers in such colleges have to perform a delicate task of handling impressionable youth, less mature in age and mind. At cost of repetition, we may say that post-graduates teaching cannot be compared qualitatively with teaching of under-graduates classes. If the argument is taken to its logical conclusion that all teachers perform similar duties qualitatively then teachers in secondary schools and senior secondary schools would be claiming parity with teachers in degree colleges and postgraduates colleges. 19. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the writ petitioner and the material placed before the learned single Judge and we do not find that the writ petitioner has at all pleaded or proved that qualitatively the functions discharged by the teachers in M.T. College were at par with teachers in Somani College. At costs of repetition, we may point out that writ petitioner can claim parity only with teachers in institutions run by the Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan and not with teachers in other institutions like teachers in Law Colleges etc. The parity has to be qualitative also and only then writ petitioner could have succeeded. 20. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 strenuously urged that the writ petitioner had placed on record Annexure-5, a letter issued by the U.G.C., which had recommended that the scheme of revision of scale of pay by the U.G.C. also covered the teachers providing instructions for B.Ed. and M.Ed. Degrees. We may state that the writ petitioner did not place on record the report of the U.G.C. referred to in para 3 of the writ petition. Annexure-5 is a poor substitute for the original report. It has been signed by a minor minion (sic.) of the U.G.C. and that too on behalf of Secretary. Annexure-5 cannot be given the same status as that of the report of U.G.C. In our considered opinion, we cannot, on basis of Annexure-5, conclude that teachers in M.T. College are entitled to grant of scales at par with lecturers in the Somani College, particularly when Beri Pay Commission did not choose to grant U.G.C. scales to lecturers in T. T. Colleges. 21. 21. We may state that it was optional for the State Government to apply U.G.C. scales to the various institutions in the State. It is a matter of policy decision to be taken by the State in its wisdom. The Beri Pay Commission did not recommend U.G.C. Pay Scales to teachers in Teachers' Training Colleges. Hence, if the Government did not apply U.G.C. scales to Teachers' Training Colleges, it cannot be faulted on this account, unless it was shown that this policy decision suffered from a legal or constitutional infirmity. In our opinion, no legal or constitutional infirmity has been established in the present case. The charge of hostile discrimination is not made out inasmuch as the duties of the teachers in M.T. College have not been established to be at par with duties of lecturers in Somani College qualitatively. Moreover, the lecturers in M.T. College would be teaching an entirely different curriculum and syllabus than the lecturers of the Somani College. 22. We, therefore, find that there was not an iota of evidence before the learned single Judge on the basis of which it could be said that the members of the writ petitioner-Association were discharging qualitatively the same duties which the teachers of Somani College were performing. 23. In view of the aforesaid finding on the above aspect, we need not enter into various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties at bar. To our mind, the judgment of the learned single Judge suffers from a serious infirmity inasmuch as he failed to take note of the fact that there was a vital qualitative difference between the duties and functions performed by the teachers in the M.T. College and duties and functions performed by the lecturers in the Somani College and as such members of writ petitioner could not be held entitled to parity in the matter of pay scales with lecturers in Somani College. 24. We may also state that the State of Rajasthan was only liable to pay Grant-in-Aid to respondent No. 2 in accordance with relevant rules and could not be saddled with liability to pay wages to the teachers of M.T. College, who were not at all its employees. 24. We may also state that the State of Rajasthan was only liable to pay Grant-in-Aid to respondent No. 2 in accordance with relevant rules and could not be saddled with liability to pay wages to the teachers of M.T. College, who were not at all its employees. The State may, however, not come if way of respondent No. 2, if respondent No. 2 chooses to pay U.G.C. scales to teachers of M.T. College, and in that event it shall make available appropriate Grant-in-Aid to Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan in accordance with the relevant Rules. 25. In the aforesaid premises, we partly accept this appeal and modify the judgment of the learned single Judge dated April 10, 1990 and dispose of the writ petition in the manner indicated above. We may state that respondent No. 2 has not appealed against the impugned judgment and hence the same has become final qua respondent No. 2.Order accordingly. *******