JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant, a retired Lecturer in a college, has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the senior scale to the petitioner with effect from February 16, 1994 and also to give him all consequential and incidental benefits of arrears of salary, forthwith. (B) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction modifying the order dated August 31, 2000 (Annexure "D") by granting the senior scale to the petitioner with effect from February 16, 1994 along with all consequential and incidental benefits of arrears of salary, forthwith. (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the senior scale to the petitioner with effect from February 16, 1994 and also to give him all consequential and incidental benefits of arrears of salary, forthwith. (D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) may kindly be granted. (E) And to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper." 2. The case of the writ-applicant may be summarised as under: "The writ-applicant joined the service of the Government Pharmacy College on 16th February 1983 as an Assistant Lecturer in the Pharmacology. On 16th February 1986, he was upgraded in the said cadre as a Lecturer. On 18th February 1989, he came to be selected as the Lecturer by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. He completed his 8 years of service in the pay-scale of Lecturer on 16th February 1994. The Government, by its resolution dated 16th April 1991, revised the pay-scale of Teachers in Degree and Pharmacy colleges in the State. The said resolution provided for a scheme for "career advancement" for Lecturers in service. According to the said resolution, a senior scale of the Lecturer of Rs. 3000-5000 would be offered to a Lecturer. The Government, by its resolution dated 16th April 1991, revised the pay-scale of Teachers in Degree and Pharmacy colleges in the State. The said resolution provided for a scheme for "career advancement" for Lecturers in service. According to the said resolution, a senior scale of the Lecturer of Rs. 3000-5000 would be offered to a Lecturer. However, the same was subject to conditions that the Lecturer shall complete 8 years of service after the regular appointment and such Lecturer should have participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes each of approximately four weeks duration. The satisfactory performance appraisal report would also be looked into for the purpose of considering providing of the senior scale. The selection grade is also available to a Lecturer in the senior scale in the grade of Rs. 3700-5700 if the Lecturer has completed 8 years of service in the senior scale and has attended two refresher courses/summer institutes or any other equivalent education programmes approved by the All India Council of Technical Education." 3. It is the case of the writ-applicant that having been appointed on 16th February 1983 and having been upgraded to the post of Lecturer on 16th February 1986, he could be said to have completed 8 years period in the pay-scale of Lecturer on 16th February 1994. Between 1986 and 1994, the writ-applicant completed two refresher courses of four weeks duration. In such circumstances, he put forward his claim to senior scale with effect from 16th February 1994. The first refresher course was between 24th April 1992 and 23rd May 1992. Whereas the second one was completed on 21st March 1998. 4. It is also his case that the requirement of completing two refresher courses for getting the senior scale was given a go-bye according to the circular of the State Government dated 7th November 1996. According to the said circular, the first respondent had asked all the Pharmacy colleges in the State to send the details according to the circular dated 5th August 1985. The circular dated 7th November 1996 made it very clear that for obtaining the senior scale the training in the summer course of four weeks only was required, and for the selection grade, eight weeks. 5. The circular dated 7th November 1996 made it very clear that for obtaining the senior scale the training in the summer course of four weeks only was required, and for the selection grade, eight weeks. 5. The writ-applicant has pointed out that in the circular dated 24th August 1999, again it was made clear that for the senior scale two refresher courses of four weeks each were necessary. According to the writ-applicant, the circular would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. In such circumstances, the writ-applicant claims that he is entitled to the senior scale from 16th February 1994. The basis of his claim is as under: "(i) He has completed four weeks training in the refresher courses/summer institutes and (ii) He has completed eight years service in the grade of Lecturer from 16.2.1986 to 16.2.1994." 6. The petitioner's aforesaid case gets support from the fact that: "(i) Shri N.P. Jivani, who became Lecturer on 16.12.1982 has been given senior scale from 11.3.1992 and he has completed no refresher course; (ii) Mr. N.J. Patel became Lecturer on 16.12.1982 and got senior scale on 5.4.1992 without going through the refresher course; (iii) Mr. H.M. Tank became Lecturer on 13.5.1984 and has been given senior scale on 18.10.1992 with four weeks summer training. (iv) Mr. K.R. Vadaliya became Lecturer on 12.10.1984 and has been granted senior scale on 22.5.1995 with four weeks training; (v) The petitioner's junior in service, Shri M.A. Aghera who became Lecturer on 3.3.1989 got senior scale on 26.5.1997 with just four weeks training." 7. The claim of the writ-applicant for senior scale with effect from 16th February 1994 came to be turned down on the ground that he had completed eight weeks of training only on 22nd March 1998. Thus, the writ-applicant was given the senior scale with effect from 22nd March 1998. He has cited instances of other Lecturers identically situated but were given the senior scale on completion of just four weeks of summer training. Hence, this writ-application. 8. On behalf of the State Government, a short reply has been filed, inter alia, stating as under: "3. By filing this special civil application the petitioner prayed for a direction directing the respondent to grant the senior scale to the petitioner with effect from February 16, 1994 with all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ-application. 8. On behalf of the State Government, a short reply has been filed, inter alia, stating as under: "3. By filing this special civil application the petitioner prayed for a direction directing the respondent to grant the senior scale to the petitioner with effect from February 16, 1994 with all consequential benefits. It is submitted that as per G.R. dated 16.4.1991 of Health and Family Welfare Department has rightly mentioned that every lecturer who had completed eight years of services after the regular appointment and who had participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes each of approximately four weeks duration. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer on 16.2.1983 and was upgraded as Lecturer on 16.2.1986. He was selected/appointed as Lecturer by GPSC on 18.2.1989 (Regular appointment). The petitioner has completed the first refresher course from 24.4.1992 to 23.5.1992 and the second refresher course completed on 21.3.1998. Therefore, the petitioner was given senior scale from 22.3.1998 by the present deponent's order dated 31.8.2000 which is as per rules and no injustice/discrepancy is occurred. It is submitted that the annexure annexed at 'C' dated 26.5.99 by the petitioner relates to the degree course, which is not applicable in the present case at point of time. It is submitted that before giving the senior scale one has to complete the eight week refresher course. For sanctioning the senior scale/selection grade the screening committee meetings were held on 25.5.2000, 20.6.2000, 5.7.2000 and 29.7.2000 for considering relevant aspects. This is also mentioned in office order dated 31.8.2000. One Mr. M.A. Agera has completed eight years of service on 3.3.1997, even though his senior scale was sanctioned from 26.5.97 on completion of training on 25.5.1997, by this office order dated 22.12.1997. Thus, the petitioner as well as other lecturers have been given due benefit as and when as per rules and no unequal treatment is given." 9. To the aforesaid reply of the State Government, the writ-applicant has filed a rejoinder, stating as under: "3.4. The petitioner has given certain names of those who are blue-eyed boys as suggested above. From those names, Mr. N.P. Jivani and Mr. N.J. Patel were promoted as Lectures, but they have been given the benefit of Senior Scale even though they have undergone no refresher course or Summer School at all. So far as Mr. Tank and Mr. The petitioner has given certain names of those who are blue-eyed boys as suggested above. From those names, Mr. N.P. Jivani and Mr. N.J. Patel were promoted as Lectures, but they have been given the benefit of Senior Scale even though they have undergone no refresher course or Summer School at all. So far as Mr. Tank and Mr. Vadaliya are concerned, they got the benefit of upgradation of the post of Assistant Lecturer to that of Lecture, but they did only four weeks summer training. Mr. Aghera, who is junior to the petitioner in service, was also promoted to the post of Lecture and has been given the benefit with just four weeks training. 3.5. It would be still interesting to note that one Shri Purohit who is junior to the petitioner in service joined the service as Assistant Lecturer on 21.11.1986 and was upgraded to the post of Lecture on 21.1.1989 and has been given Senior Scale with effect from 28.9.1997, i.e. after eight years from 21.1.1989. The aforesaid benefit could not have been given to Shri Purohit unless his appointment was a regular appointment. The method and mode of appointment of the petitioner and Shri Purohit is same and similar, namely, being appointed directly as Assistant Lecturer and then got the post of Lecture because of upgradation and the order of the State Government dated 2.7.1997. A copy of the Resolution dated 8.6.1989 of the State Government is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure "I". A copy of the order dated 2.7.1997 of the State Government is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure "II". 4. I say that, instead of explaining as to how and why senior scale and selection grade have been given to Mr. Jiwani, Mr. N.J. Patel, who have not gone through the refresher course at all also to Mr. H.M. Tank, Mr. K.R. Vadaliya, who have done the refresher course only for a period of four weeks, as also Mr. M.A. Aghera, who has done the refresher course only for four weeks ans. junior to the petitioner, in the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was not regularly appointed in 1986 and he was appointed only on 18.2.1989 after he was selected as Lecturer by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. It is admitted by the first respondent that the petitioner, who was appointed on 16.2.1983, was upgraded as Lecturer on 16.2.1986. junior to the petitioner, in the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was not regularly appointed in 1986 and he was appointed only on 18.2.1989 after he was selected as Lecturer by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. It is admitted by the first respondent that the petitioner, who was appointed on 16.2.1983, was upgraded as Lecturer on 16.2.1986. It is stated that the petitioner getting through the Gujarat Public Service Commission examination was a further qualification, and the date of clearing such examination is not the date of regular appointment. I say that, as per the Government Resolution of 8.6.1989, all the Assistant Lecturers working in the Government Pharmacy College, Rajkot, to the Lecturers with effect from 19.11.1982. Even, ion the seniority list published on 2.7.1994 and on 5.7.2001, the date of upgradation has been taken into account in the case of all the Lecturers in service with the Government Pharmacy College, Rajkot, which includes the petitioner. 4.1. The deponent has referred to the case of Mr. Aghera, who is junior to the petitioner, and he has been upgraded on 1.1.1989, after about three years from the petitioner's upgradation, which is dated 16.2.1986, and, despite the fact that he has done the refresher course only for four weeks, he has been given the benefit of Senior Scale. It may also be mentioned that the names of the gentlemen, which have been mentioned in the writ petition, are shown in the said seniority list and all of them have been given the benefit of senior scale keeping the petitioner out of such benefit, which is arbitrary, illegal and in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4.2. The petitioner would like to give example of one Mr. N.T. Purohit, who is junior in service to the present petitioner, who joined as Assistant Lecturer on 21.11.1986. He was upgraded to the post of Lecturer on 21.1.1989 and he was granted senior scale from 28.9.1997. The Senior Scale would not have been given to Mr. N.T. Purohit if he was not regularly appointed. Mr. Vadalia, Lecture senior to the petitioner, joined as Assistant Lecturer on 12.10.1981 and he was upgraded to the post of appointment on 12.10.1984. In office order dated 22.12.1997, the deponent has admitted that Mr. K.R. Vadalia becomes eligible for senior scale from 22.7.1992 (upgradation plus 8 years). N.T. Purohit if he was not regularly appointed. Mr. Vadalia, Lecture senior to the petitioner, joined as Assistant Lecturer on 12.10.1981 and he was upgraded to the post of appointment on 12.10.1984. In office order dated 22.12.1997, the deponent has admitted that Mr. K.R. Vadalia becomes eligible for senior scale from 22.7.1992 (upgradation plus 8 years). The following persons are not selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission from amongst the above: (i) Mr. N.P. Jiwani (ii) Mr. N.J. Patel (iii) Mr. N.R. Sheth Despite that, they had not only been given the upgradation, but they had also given the benefit of senior scale. 4.3. The deponent has jumped to the conclusion that one can be said to be regularly appointed only after he is selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. It may be stated that, while the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer on 16.2.1983, he was already Lecturer on 16.2.1986 because of upgradation. He got the said benefit along others whose posts were also upgraded to the post of Lecturer. The aforesaid benefit of upgradation would not have been given unless and until it was confirmed that the petitioner and others were from 'regular appointments' as Lecturer with the Government Pharmacy College, Rajkot. The deponent has not explained as to how and why the Rule for getting the senior scale is made applicable to the other colleagues of the petitioner who either have not done any refresher course at all, or have undergone the refresher course for four weeks only. The deponent has not produced the minutes of the Screening Committee dated 25.5.2000, 20.6.2000, 5.7.2000 and 29.7.2000. Thus, the order dated 31.8.2000, which is at Annexure "D", does not give any explanation as to how and why certain persons were given the senior scale/selection grade keeping out the petitioner or giving him the benefit with effect from 21.3.1998 and not earlier, as asked by him. In paragraph 3, the deponent has stated that the G.R. Dated 16.4.1991 of Health & Family Welfare Department has mentioned that the requirement of Senior Scale is eight week's Summer School, but the deponent's circular dated 7.11.1996 has announced that requirement for Senior Scale is four weeks; Summer School. This is contradictory and misleading and needs to be explained by the DTE. This is contradictory and misleading and needs to be explained by the DTE. Therefore, the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is vague and misleading and deserves to be ignored. 4.4. Again, while referring to Mr. M.A. Aghera, it is not mentioned that how he has been given the benefit, even though he is not selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission at any point of time and he has completed only four weeks refresher course and not eight weeks as demanded by the respondents. It is wrong on the part of the deponent to have stated that the petitioner and other Lecturers have been given due benefit as per the Rules and no unequal treatment is given. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has the right to be treated equally with other colleagues at the Government Pharmacy College, Rajkot, whose names and details have been mentioned in Paragraph 9. 4.5. The deponent has stated that Annexure "C" dated 26.5.1999 is related to Degree Course and is not applicable to the petitioner, but page (2) of Annexure "C" states that the G.R. will be applicable to all the Colleges offering Degree Courses and B.K. Govt. Pharmacy College has been offering Degree Course since 1984. So, the statement made by the deponent is misleading." 10. Thus, the stance of the State Government is that as the writ-applicant had completed the second refresher course on 21st March 1998, he was given the senior scale from 22nd March 1998. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the writ-applicant is entitled to the senior scale with effect from 16th February 1994. 12. In my view, there is no reply at the end of the State Government as regards the Government Resolution dated 7th November 1996, Annexure-B to this petition, page 43, as well as the Government Resolution dated 26th May 1999, Annexure-C to this petition, page 45. There is no reply as regards the contention of discrimination, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State Government should have explained, how the case of the writ-applicant differs from S/Shri N.P. Jiwani, N.J. Patel, H.M. Tank and K.R. Vadaliya. There is no reply as regards the contention of discrimination, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State Government should have explained, how the case of the writ-applicant differs from S/Shri N.P. Jiwani, N.J. Patel, H.M. Tank and K.R. Vadaliya. He has pointed out that one Shri M.A. Aghera, junior to him, who became Lecturer on 3rd March 1989, received the senior scale on 26th May 1997 with just four weeks of training. In such circumstances, I am left with no other option but to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the writ-applicant as regards his claim to seek senior scale with effect from 16th February 1994. 13. The respondent No. 1 shall hear the writ-applicant once again and take an appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations of this Court including the ground which have been raised in this writ-application. 14. Let such decision be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The decision shall be in writing containing the reasons and the same shall be communicated to the writ-applicant. 15. If the writ-applicant is dissatisfied in any manner with the fresh decision that may be taken, it shall be open for the writ-applicant to challenge the same before this Court. 16. With the above, this writ-application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.