JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. The present batch of appeal arises from the common judgment and order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petitions filed by the petitioners, lamely, Rampal Singh; Shakuntala Kewaliya; and Gauri Shanker have been allowed. 2. The State of Rajasthan as well as the Vice Chancellor, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur have separately challenged the common order passed in writ petitions filed by the above referred petitioners. 3. As the captioned appeals involve identical facts and law, the same are being decided conjointly, however, the facts of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 425/2017 titled as "Vice Chancellor, JNVU, Jodhpur &. Anr. vs. Shakuntala Kewaliya" are being taken into consideration, as a lead case. 4. This appeal (No. 425/2017) emanates from the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3935/2015 involving the following factual backdrop:- The petitioner filed the writ petition inter alia praying that she be accorded UGC Pay Scale w.e.f. the date of eligibility. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Library Assistant vide order dated 20.12.1983 by the respondent - University, whereafter, she was given ad-hoc promotion on the post of Senior Technical Assistant on 17.09.1994 and was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 14.10.1999. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possesses the following educational qualification and is duly eligible to hold the post of Senior Technical Assistant:- "1- B.A. - II Division (1987) 2- Certificate Court in Library Science - II Division (1989) 3- M.A. - III Division (1996) 4- B. Lib - II Division" 6. The Respondent - University did not give the UGC Pay Scale to her, despite promotion, as she was not entitled for the same in terms of the Office Order dated 07.07.1994. According to the University, the Office Order dated 07.07.1994 required following qualifications, in order to avail UGC Pay Scale:- "First, or Second class B.A./B.Sc./B.Com Degree plus a first or Second class M.Lib. Sc. Degree or first or Second Class M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. Degree and a first or second class B.Lib. Sc. Or a Diploma in Library Science." 7. The petitioner claimed and prayed for grant of UGC Pay Scale essentially claiming parity with the cases decided by this Court and the decisions taken by the University itself. 8. Sc. Degree or first or Second Class M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. Degree and a first or second class B.Lib. Sc. Or a Diploma in Library Science." 7. The petitioner claimed and prayed for grant of UGC Pay Scale essentially claiming parity with the cases decided by this Court and the decisions taken by the University itself. 8. The learned Single Judge though observed that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification mentioned in the Office Order dated 07.07.1994, yet held the petitioner entitled for UGC Pay Scale, essentially because the University has extended such benefit to various other persons such as K.L. Rai, M.D. Lohiya and A.N. Rajappan pursuant to the orders of Courts or suo-motu. Learned Single Judge further held that in light of the expert report/legal opinion, denying the benefit of UGC Pay Scale to the petitioner was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge ruled that as the petitioner being duly qualified and eligible was promoted to the post of Senior Technical Assistant; hence, she is equally entitled for the benefits of UGC Pay Scale from the date of such promotion. 9. In a bid to complete the factual canvass, it would be worthwhile to notice the requisite qualification for promotion to the post off Senior Technical Assistant as per the Rules, which runs as under:- "Mode of recruitment: 1- 100% promotion from amongst J.T.A* 2- Post sanctioned by U.G.C. shall be filed by direct recruitment Qualifications: 1- For Promotion A. (i) Graduation or equivalent (ii) Bachelors of degree in Lib. Science or equivalent degree/Diploma pass (iii) Three experiences of working as J.T.A. B. As revised from time to time by the Syndicate." 10. Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondent -University assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner primarily on the basis of the judgment dated 04.01.2007, rendered in case of M.D. Lohiya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondent -University assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner primarily on the basis of the judgment dated 04.01.2007, rendered in case of M.D. Lohiya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. He argued that the facts involved in the present case were entirely different from the facts of M.D. Lohiya's case; the writ petition filed by M.D. Lohiya had been allowed, inter alia, holding that the petitioner, being a Senior Technical Assistant employed with the University, was entitled for grant of the UGC Pay Scale, as were to the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants working in the Government Colleges were entitled. He submitted that the petitioner in the present case, does not fulfill the educational qualification prescribed in the order dated 07.07.1994, for which, her claim for grant of UGC Pay Scale has been rightly rejected by the University. He accepted that University in principle agreed that the UGC Pay Scales are available to the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants, albeit in terms of Office Order dated 07.07.1994. 11. Mr. Beniwal contended that grant of promotion to a particular post and grant of UGC Pay Scale are entirely different and they should not be confused or interchanged. An employer is well within its right to provide for a higher pay scale to some of the employees, based on the educational qualification out of the persons working on the same post, he emphasized. To buttress this argument, Mr. Beniwal relied upon the following judgments:- (i) (1968) 1 SCR 407 : AIR 1968 SC 349 : (1968) 2 LLJ 120 - State of Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao; (ii) 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522 - State of Rajasthan vs. Gopi Kishan Sen; (iii) (2004) 4 SCC 646 - Chhattisgarh Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association vs. State of M.P. & Ors; and (iv) (2011) 3 SCC 436 - State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamta Mohanty. 12. Learned counsel for the University also urged that the learned Single Judge has erred in giving much credence to the legal opinion or purported expert opinion given by the Dean/Lecturers of -Law Faculty of the University. vs. Mamta Mohanty. 12. Learned counsel for the University also urged that the learned Single Judge has erred in giving much credence to the legal opinion or purported expert opinion given by the Dean/Lecturers of -Law Faculty of the University. He added that the legal opinion referred to and relied upon by the petitioner is nothing but a "privileged communication between the University and its other wing; and even if the said opinion is taken into consideration, the same does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner. 13. Mr. Beniwal submitted that it is true that the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualification to be promoted to the post of Senior Technical Assistant, but still when its comes to grant of UGC Pay Scale, she lacks it. While referring to the Office Order dated 07.07.1994, he pointed out that the petitioner had secured 3rd Division in Masters Degree in Arts whereas she was required to secure 2nd Division in her Post Graduation in order to be eligible to avail UGC Scale. 14. Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Associate of Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, arguing the appeal filed by the State, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Beniwal, placed for consideration of this Court, the following judgments - (i) Madan Singh Rathore vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2789/1998), decided on 23.04.2009; (ii) State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (Civil Appeal of 2009), decided on 28.07.2009; and (iii) Sahib Ram vs. The State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 1995 SCC Suppl. (1) 18 JT 1995 (1) 24 with the help of these Judgments, he submitted that in identical circumstances, the Courts have repelled the claim for grant of UGC Pay Scale to various employees for want of requisite educational qualification. 15. Ms. Varsha Bissa, learned counsel for the writ-petitioners/respondents supporting the judgment under consideration, contended that the same is in conformity and harmony with the settled and consistent view of this Court. She submitted that in a series of cases, this Court has held that the senior Technical Assistants/Librarians working with the University are entitled for UGC Pay Scale, as are similarly situated employees in Government Colleges. She added that not only this Court, even the University itself has been conferring such benefits to the Senior Technical Assistants and Professional Assistants. She submitted that in a series of cases, this Court has held that the senior Technical Assistants/Librarians working with the University are entitled for UGC Pay Scale, as are similarly situated employees in Government Colleges. She added that not only this Court, even the University itself has been conferring such benefits to the Senior Technical Assistants and Professional Assistants. The petitioner has been discriminated and treated differently for the superfluous reason that she lacks the requisite educational qualification, having secured 3rd Division in M.A. She reiterated that so far as educational qualification is concerned, indisputably she possesses the same : M.A. and Bachelor of Library Science, for which, she had been promoted to Senior Technical Assistant. 16. Mrs. Bissa painstakingly submitted that simply because the petitioner failed to secure 2nd Division or higher, she cannot be denied benefit of UGC Pay Scale. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of this Court, rendered in the case of Laxmi Narain Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in RLR 2002(1) P. 771, while also informing that the said judgment has been affirmed by a Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 15.04.2009 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 486/2002 and by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as Special Leave Petition there-against has been dismissed on 15.01.2010. 17. Bringing to the notice of this Court, the aforesaid judgments, she contended that in almost identical factual and legal matrix, this Court has ruled that the condition stipulating that only those existing Librarians, who are having First Class or Second Class Degree in academic or Library Science are eligible for UGC Scale was wholly perverse and arbitrary. The relevant excerpts of the said judgment are quoted hereinafter:- "9. When this Court has accepted that the Librarians working in the various Colleges of the Government of Rajasthan and the Universities are entitled for the benefit of the upgraded UGC Pay Scales without there being any condition having been imposed of 1st Class or II Class Degree or PG Degree as well as 1st or IInd Class Degree or Diploma in Library Science or it is permissible to the respondents to put these terms and conditions vide document (Annexure-R/1). When this Court has already accepted this claim of the Librarians for this upgraded UGC Pay-Scales and it has to be given to all the Librarians irrespective of the fact whether they came before this Court or not. The earlier writ petition had been filed by the Association and the judgment given therein was for all the Librarians. The stand taken by the respondents first; to get a separate order from this Court for this pay scale and secondly only those existing Librarians who are I Class or II Class Degree Holders in academic or in Library Science are eligible for this benefit are wholly perverse and arbitrary. 10. The State of Rajasthan is a welfare State and it is not an ordinary employer or a businessman or industrialist or a shopkeeper, has to exhibit itself as a model employer. It is not a case of the respondents that the benefits of the judgment of this Court was given only to the Librarians who are possessing 1st or IInd Class Degree or PG Degree in Library Science or in Academic. This Court puts this question to the learned counsel for the respondents and he is unable to give any reply to the same. In the absence of any reply to this question otherwise also it is very difficult to accept that these benefits have been given only to those existing Librarians who are having 1st or IInd Class Degree in PG Academic only in Library Science. The respondents, it is to be stated at the cost of the repetition, have failed to produce any material on record that this upgraded UGC pay scale has been restricted by the UGC to those existing Librarians who are holding the 1st of IInd Class Degree or PG Degree in Academic and 1st or IInd Class Degree in Library Science. Unless it is established as a fact to the satisfaction of the Court that subject to the possessing of Degree of 1st or IInd Class in Academic and also in Library Science, this upgraded UGC pay-scales can't be given to the petitioners, the State Government is not correct in its approach to restrict the availability of this benefit of upgraded UGC pay scales on the terms and conditions as given out in Annexure-R/1." 18. Learned counsel for the respondents, thus contended that the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner, eligible for grant of UGC pay-scales on the pretext of not securing II Division or above, is wholly unsustainable. 19. We have heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the Judgments cited at the bar. 20. Apparently learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner(s), while relying upon the judgment of M.D. Lohiya and other judgments referred therein. We find some substance in the arguments advanced by Mr. Deepesh Singh -Beniwal that the judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge are distinguishable on facts, as the qualification as a precursor was not a core question of consideration in those judgments. 21. Learned Single Judge has though noticed, but not dealt with the Judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Sharma's case reported in 2002 (1) RLR 771 , which serves the cause of the petitioner. 22. The legal position that the employer can provide for grant of higher pay scale, based on the educational qualification does not required much deliberation. But the facts in the present case are entirely different. Here is a case, where the respondent -University, while providing for educational qualification has stringed an additional requirement of securing 2nd Division or 1st Division which, in our considered opinion, is arbitrary and unreasonable. In the guise of prescribing educational qualification, the University cannot carve out a class amongst the class. It amounts to treating the equals as unequal for irrelevant consideration and the same falls foul to the right of equality, guaranteed by the Constitution. 23. It is true that the petitioner has not challenged the criteria laid down in the order dated 07.07.1994 in express terms but nevertheless the Office Order dated 07.07.1994, being an administrative order, has to conform to the basic tenets of fairness and reasonableness. The condition(s) in the order dated 07.07.1994 requiring the incumbents to secure 2nd Division or above in their academics is arbitrary and thus declared as such. 24. The condition(s) in the order dated 07.07.1994 requiring the incumbents to secure 2nd Division or above in their academics is arbitrary and thus declared as such. 24. As long as the educational qualification for grant of UGC Pay Scale is concerned, we do not find any error in the stand of the respondent -University; however, denying the benefits of UGC Pay-Scale simply because a candidate could not secure 2nd Division or higher, cannot be countenanced, particularly when the Rules for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant does not require any such stipulation of having 2nd Division or higher in academics. While providing for eligibility criterion for grant of higher pay scale, academic excellence cannot be incorporated under the cloak of academic qualification. Academic excellence, in a given case can be valid consideration, at the time of entry into a service, but once appointed or promoted, all the persons with equal educational qualification have to be treated at par and they should sail in the same boat. 25. We find that the petitioner is armed with Bachelor's Degree in Library Science in 2nd Division and Masters Degree in Arts in 3rd Division. The respondents have non-suited the petitioner, as she has failed to secure 2nd Division or 1st Division in her Post Graduation. 26. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been duly promoted on the post of Senior Technical Assistant and has been working as such. Once the petitioner is possessing the requisite educational qualification to hold such post, this Court does, not find any justification in depriving the petitioner of the benefit of UGC Pay Scale, simply because she has not been able to secure 2nd Division in Masters Degree in Arts. 27. As we have already declared the requirement of securing 2nd Division or higher to be arbitrary, we quash the underlined portion of the Office Order dated 7.7.1994 reproduced in para No. 6 of the Judgment instant. 28. We find that learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner in toto and held her entitled to UGC Pay Scale from the date of promotion. According to us the UGC Pay Scale payable to the petitioner on acquiring the educational qualification mentioned in the Office Order dated 7.7.94 and the same cannot be conferred simply from the date of promotion. 29. According to us the UGC Pay Scale payable to the petitioner on acquiring the educational qualification mentioned in the Office Order dated 7.7.94 and the same cannot be conferred simply from the date of promotion. 29. As an upshot of the discussion and result of the enunciation above, though for different reasons, we affirm the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition subject to foregoing modifications:- (i) The petitioners namely Shakuntala Kewalia and Rampal Singh are held entitled for UGC Scale from the date they have acquired the requisite educational qualification (ignoring the marks obtained for such qualification) or from the date of promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant, whichever is later; (ii) Accordingly, their fixation be made forthwith and arrears be paid within three months from today. In the event of failure to make requisite payment within the period aforesaid, the due amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. 30. The order of learned Single Judge to grant benefit of UGC scale from the date of their promotion stands modified in the manner stated above. The appeals (being DB Special Appeals Writ No. 425/2017 and 719/2018) and are partly allowed. SAW No. 368/2017 and 674/2018: 31. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent employee informs that the respondent Rampal Singh possesses following educational qualification:- (i) B.A. - IIIrd Division (ii) B.Lib. - IInd Division (1988) (iii) M.Lib. - IInd Division (2011) 32. In view of the enunciation made in Shakuntala's case, these appeals too are partly allowed. Respondent is declared entitled for the benefits of UGC Pay Scale, as held in the Shakuntala's case. SAW No. 335/2017 and 676/2018: 33. Ms. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Gauri Shanker Vyas informs that he possesses the following educational qualification:- (i) B.A. - IIIrd Division (1983) (ii) B.Lib. - IInd Division (2003) 34. As Gauri Shanker Vyas is neither having Masters degree in Arts nor in Library Science, he does not fulfill the requisite criterion for grant of UGC pay-scale, as stipulated in the Office Order dated 07.07.1994. 35. Hence, appeals relating to Gauri Shanker Vyas filed by the appellants against the judgment in SBCWP No. 1047/2016 are allowed. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by petitioner Gauri Shanker Vyas stands dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in each of the files.