Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 21 (JK)

Mohd. Ayoub, Surjeet Kumar v. State Of J. &K.

2004-02-16

PERMOD KOHLI

body2004
Petitioners in these writ petitions applied for their selection as teachers pursuant to advertisement notice dated 19.4.1990 to the J&K Subordinate Service Recruitment Board. Besides the qualifications and other eligibility criterion as prescribed in the advertisement, pay scale for the post, was also indicated as Rs. 900-1830 (revised Rs. 1200-2040). After completion of process of selection, a select list was issued in the year 1991 and number of candidates were appointed in the aforesaid pay scale. One of such of appointment order dated 30.11.1991 of one Sat Pal, is placed on record. As far petitioners are concerned, they also came to be appointed in the year 1993. However, in case of petitioners, their pay scale was mentioned as 950-1500. 2. The grievance of the petitioners as projected in these petitions is, that they were candidates in the same selection though appointed on different dates and through different select lists, their pay scales cannot be different. The prayer made in the petitions, is for placement of petitioners in higher pay scale i.e. Rs. 900-1830 instead of Rs. 950-1500. 3. Objections have been filed to the petitions by the official respondents wherein it is stated that at the time of appointment of petitioners, the pay scales of teachers were governed and regulated by SRO 75 of 1992 dated 30.3.1992. The rules namely the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules ,1992 envisage two classes of teachers on the basis of their qualification. As far under- Graduate teachers are concerned, their pay scale has been provided Rs. 950-1500 and the Graduate Teachers were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040(revised). In respect to under -Graduate Teachers, they were entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 after completion of eight years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. For facility of reference, relevant extract from the said SRO, is reproduced as under: " 9(e) Teachers: All the teachers carrying the existing pay scale of Rs. 900-1830 will be placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. For future recruitment the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 will be available for Graduate Teachers. The under-Graduate teachers will initially be recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 after completing eight years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500." 4. 1200-2040. For future recruitment the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 will be available for Graduate Teachers. The under-Graduate teachers will initially be recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 after completing eight years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500." 4. Admittedly, petitioners in these petitions were appointed after coming into operation of SRO 75 of 1992. Their pay scales were governed and regulated by the aforesaid SRO. It is immaterial whether the appointment of the petitioners emanates from the same selection or different. The mere fact that they have been appointed after coming into operation of the aforesaid SRO, which has specifically provided the pay scale for such class of the teachers, they cannot claim a different pay scale. There is no question of discrimination on this count. It is an appointment on different times and regulated by statutory rules. Petitioners are not equally placed to attract the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In addition to above, there is no challenge to SRO 75, wherein different pay scales have been prescribed. Otherwise also, the classification contained in rule 9(e) based upon qualification, is rationale, legal and valid. 5. For what has been stated above, there is not merit in these petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMPs.