JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, the learned counsel representing the Finance Department. 2. The facts laid out by the petitioners is that the petitioner association is comprised of the Assistant Teachers of various Upper Primary Schools in the State and are Trained Graduate Teachers. At the time of entry and despite having Graduate Degree, they were paid intermediate scale of pay. Having regard to the nature of work and duties discharged by them, a claim was made for graduate scale of pay at par with the Graduate Teachers (Science). For the fact that there was disparity in the pay scale, the petitioner association had the occasion to move this court earlier in WP(C) No. 3665 of 2004 and by order of this court a direction was issued, particularly to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department, to examine the case of the members of the petitioner’s association individually. It was further observed that if on such examination it is found that they are eligible to get the graduate scale of pay, the same shall be given to them forthwith. The denial of equal scale of pay, according to the petitioner’s association, is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial and in fact, the decision of the State respondents to hold on to the disparity was by way of ignoring material and relevant facts. Challenge is made to the action of the State respondents in resorting to an unreasonable classification. 3. Referring to the provisions of the Assam Services(Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, as notified in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 4.2.2010 a claim is made that the petitioners who are Trained Graduate Teachers ought to have been brought at par with those of the Graduate Teacher (Science). Particular reference is made to the fact that whereas Graduate Teachers (Science) have been allowed the Grade Pay of Rs. 3,300.00, the members of the petitioner association have only been granted a Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800.00. On the said premises, amongst others, this writ petition is laid with the prayer for quashing the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. 3,300.00, the members of the petitioner association have only been granted a Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800.00. On the said premises, amongst others, this writ petition is laid with the prayer for quashing the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. Prayer is also made for a direction to the State respondents for extending graduate pay equal to that of the pay admissible to Graduate Teachers (Science). 4. Mr. Das, to butress his arguments, refers to the letter of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dated 3.1.2005 which indicates the steps initiated for allowing graduate scale of pay to the Graduate Teachers of Upper Primary Schools who are working as Assistant Teachers in the intermediate scale of pay. The justification for considering the case of the Graduate Teacher of Upper Primary School have also been indicated in the said letter dated 3.1.2005. Mr. Das also refers to the draft Cabinet Memorandum meant for circulation under Rule 17 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business where it was contemplated for initiating a process to bring the scale of pay of the Assistant Teachers of Upper Primary Schools at par with the Science Graduate Teachers. 5. At a time when the Pay Commission of 2008 had sat on the issue, a proposal was put up to the Pay Commission by the Commissioner and Secretary, Education (Elementary) Department for consideration of up-gradation of the scale of pay of Graduate Assistant Teachers at par and equal to the scale of pay enjoyed by the Science Graduate Teachers in Upper Primary Schools in the State of Assam. Mr. Das also refers to the report of the Anomaly Committee of 2010. The said committee had been constituted by the Government of Assam to examine the anomalies, if any, in the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008. The report of the committee clearly indicates that the following factors should be the guiding factors for determination of graduate pay: (i) Minimum educational qualification required for the post. (ii) Method of recruitment. (iii) Nature of duties entrusted to the post. (iv) Responsibilities involved in the job. 6. The report of the committee clearly indicates that the following factors should be the guiding factors for determination of graduate pay: (i) Minimum educational qualification required for the post. (ii) Method of recruitment. (iii) Nature of duties entrusted to the post. (iv) Responsibilities involved in the job. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner association that despite sincere steps taken by the State Government for attaining an equilibrium in the scale of pay between the two categories, the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 was enacted by maintaining the disparity between the teachers who are Trained Graduate Teachers with that of the Graduate Teachers (Science). In that view of the matter, challenge has been made in the present writ petition for quashing the Rules of 2010 with further direction to the State respondents to take steps for bringing parity of grade pay between the two categories. 7. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned counsel representing the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the classification made between the two categories cannot be faulted and it is a reasonable classification. Referring to paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3, it is stated that way back in the year 1991, the Government of Assam had created 5474 posts of graduate teachers for appointment in ME schools in the graduate scale of pay. It is contended that the necessity for doing so was due to upward standardisation of two streams, namely mathematics and science in the ME schools in the State of Assam. The said science graduate teachers who were appointed against 5474 posts constitutes a separate category of teachers and the members of the petitioner association cannot be equated with the said Science Graduate Teachers. Taking it further, Mr. Mazumdar also refers to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition to say that it is no more res-integra that educational qualification has been recognised as the criteria for determining the validity of the classification. In other words, Mr. Mazumdar submits that the employees performing/discharging similar job but having different educational qualification can necessarily be treated differently. In addition, it is contended that the members of the petitioner association do not uniformly possess Graduate degree. 8. At this stage, Mr. D. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that classification can be made having regard to different educational qualification. In addition, it is contended that the members of the petitioner association do not uniformly possess Graduate degree. 8. At this stage, Mr. D. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that classification can be made having regard to different educational qualification. However, Mr. Das submits that with the amendment of Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, as appearing in the Notification dated 20.10.2012, the entry level qualification for both the categories have been equated. It is contended that a graduate degree is the entry level qualification for both Trained Graduate Teachers as well as in respect of Graduate Teachers (Science). 9. For the fact that an amendment has been brought about in the aforesaid Rules, 1977 and the said changed circumstances not having yet been looked into by the State Government, this court is of the considered opinion that the changed circumstances and consequences thereof needs to be addressed to by the respondents. The equation in the entry level qualification by the amendment brought about in the Rules vis-a-vis the case of the petitioner is a matter which requires consideration of the State respondents, besides the opinions rendered by it on the issue from time to time. We do not consider detaining the adjudication of this case any further. Also, we are not inclined to interfere on the legality and validity of the provisions under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. We leave it to the wisdom of the State Government to look into the issue and make sincere efforts in bringing parity between the two categories of teachers i.e., Trained Graduate Teachers and the Graduate Science Teachers. 10. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education(Elementary) Department to address and to have a relook into the issue in terms of the observations made herein above. It is needless to say that the exercise as required to be undertaken by the Secretary to the Government of Assam be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within an outer limit period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.