Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 213 (KAR)

RAMESHWARI VARMA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

2003-02-27

K.RAMANNA, S.R.NAYAK

body2003
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petitioner in W. P. No. 21258 of 1991 being unsuccessful in getting the relief at the hands of learned Single Judge has preferred this writ appeal calling in question correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 15-6-1999. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the appellant herein sought for mandamus directing the respondent-University to extend pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 on the ground that University cannot discriminate between the Readers who have been promoted on regular basis and the Readers promoted under a special scheme called "merit promotion scheme" to which class the petitioner belongs. Learned Single Judge having opined that the lecturers who came to be promoted to the cadre of Readers in the university, in regular channel of promotional avenue and the petitioner and others who have been promoted under the "merit promotion scheme" could not be regarded as the persons belonging to the same class in order to attract the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, refused to grant relief. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri S. Kashinath, learned Counsel for appellant, sri S. G. Bhagawan, learned Standing Counsel for the University and Sri b. N. Prasad, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the state. ( 4 ) IT was contended before us that since the Readers promoted to the cadre through the regular channel of promotion and the Readers who are promoted under the "merit promotion scheme" perform and discharge the same duties and functions in the University, the University cannot be permitted to practice invidious discrimination by applying different pay scales and therefore, inaction of the University in extending pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 to the petitioner and similarly circumstanced readers could not be sustained on the touchstone of Article 14 of the constitution of India. On the other hand, Sri S. G. Bhagawan supported the order of learned Single Judge by contending that the two classes of readers could not be regarded as the persons belonging to the same "well-defined class" to attract the postulates of Article 14 and to apply doctrine of equality. ( 5 ) WE do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. ( 5 ) WE do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. On the threshold, it needs be noticed that but for the "merit promotion scheme" framed by the University, de hors the regular channel of promotion available to the Readers in the University, the petitioner herein would not have got promotion to the post of Reader at the point of time at which he was promoted under the said scheme. It was brought to our notice that promotion scheme framed by the University itself prescribes the pay scales of the promotees. The petitioner having accepted the offer to be promoted to the post of Reader in terms of the "merit promotion scheme" with his eyes wide open cannot turnround and contend that he should also be paid in terms of the pay scale on par with those Readers who are promoted in the regular channel of promotion. What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification. It is well- settled that the reviewing Court while applying postulates of Article 14 cannot review the action of the State authority with mathematical precision or dogmatic perception and that a reasonable leeway should be permitted to the State authorities and instrumentalities of the State in classifying persons and things for application of law and/or extending benefits and advantages etc. , under diverse situations. Having regard to the fact that the "merit promotion scheme" is de hors the regular channel of promotion, it cannot be said that the petitioner and the regularly promoted Readers should be treated as the persons belonging to a 'well-defined class' for the purpose of Article 14. The classification made by the University in the matter of payment of salary at different rate is justified and rational. We do not find any flaw in the reasons given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .