JUDGMENT : S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-to the petitioner suitably modifying the order contained in Memo No. 11/Ni.1-2/2014/2494 dated 29.07.2015 issued by respondent No. 2 which, according to the petitioner, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as a different pay scale has been laid down for Trained Graduate Teachers of other streams in the same notification. By amendment as per the order dated 21.11.2016, a further prayer has been added to declare sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 (to the extent it relates to pay scale) of the Jharkhand Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 2004 ultra vires the Constitution of India and to quash and set aside the same. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner has passed matriculation and has also obtained a graduate degree in Music. The petitioner is also possessing a Post Grade Degree in the stream of English. He has received training from ‘Praacheen Kala Kendra’ and has been conferred with ‘Sangeet Visharad’ which is equivalent to a degree. An advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi on 11.10.2011 for appointment of post of Assistant Teacher in the newly upgraded secondary schools in the State of Jharkhand in various subjects including ‘Sangeet’. The petitioner applied for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the subject of ‘Sangeet’. After a selection process he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, however, his pay was fixed at Rs.4500-125-7000/-. Initially, the writ petitioner filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which came for hearing before a learned Single Judge, but after filing of counter affidavit the petitioner sought amendment of the prayer and challenged the vires of the Rules contained in notification dated 5th of November, 2004 stating that he has been discriminated in the sense that for Assistant Teacher, Physical Education, the entry level pay scale is Rs.5500-175-9000/-. This, according to the petitioner, is discriminatory and in the teeth of the principle of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents which states that difference in pay scale has been done because B. Ed. Education is not essential for the post of Music Teacher. This, according to the petitioner, is discriminatory and in the teeth of the principle of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents which states that difference in pay scale has been done because B. Ed. Education is not essential for the post of Music Teacher. It is the specific case of the respondents that Assistant Teacher (Music) is not at par with that of Assistant Teacher of other subject. The qualification of Assistant Teacher other than Music subject is Bachelor Degree from recognized university with second division along with Bachelor of Education whereas for the post of Assistant Teacher (Music), the basic qualification is matriculation with degree in music. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the reported case of the State of Punjab and Others vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 379 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principle that unequal treatment in the same service which was created in a common process of selection cannot be allowed to be made. It is appropriate to take the exact words used by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case which are quoted below: “24. It is evident that at the time of initial appointment, both the degree-holders and the diploma-holders were appointed by a common process of selection where for the engineering trade a degree was required and for the non-engineering trade a diploma was considered as the appropriate qualification. A common advertisement was issued and a common process of selection led to the appointment of all persons who were designated as Vocational Masters. They were appointed on a pay scale higher than the general lecturers. They continued to draw a higher scale till the year 1978 when the pay scale of the general lecturers was brought on a par with the pay scale of the Vocational Masters. It is only in the year 1995 that an effort was made by the State Government to create a distinction between the degree-holders as Vocational Lecturers and diploma-holders as Vocational Masters. 25. Further, since the very inception, the educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been a degree or a diploma with three years’ experience as both the qualifications were placed on a par. 25. Further, since the very inception, the educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been a degree or a diploma with three years’ experience as both the qualifications were placed on a par. All persons were appointed by a common process of selection and they teach the same classes, performing the same work. No distinction can be brought about between the persons so appointed. It is only subsequently that the appellants designated some of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about an artificial distinction between the two. Even on account of re-designation of the degree-holders and postgraduates as Vocational Lecturers, there was no change in the responsibilities and the financial matters as between the degree-holders and diploma-holders before the alleged notification which fact is duly admitted by the State. There is no distinction between the Vocational Lecturers and Vocational Masters and they form one unified cadre and class. There cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment in the Rules. As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that the Vocational Masters are discharging their duty in the Senior Secondary Schools in the engineering/non-engineering trades and have the technical qualifications while the Vocational Lecturers are also discharging the same duties in the same schools. Both Vocational Masters and Lecturers are teaching the same classes i.e. 10+1 and 10+2 and hence the nature of work, responsibilities and duties being identical and the pay scales were also kept identical since 1978 onwards. 26. The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of the Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order providing justice-social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimising monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections. Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of the 4th Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eye of the law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same. 27. We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.” 5. However, reading of the aforesaid judgment reveals the facts of the case are totally different. In a reported case cited above, in a selection process, teachers were appointed who were termed as ‘Vocational Masters’ and the minimum qualification for applying such posts was Degree in Engineering or Diploma in Engineering with three years of work experience. After completion of the selection process the candidates belonging to both the aforesaid qualifications were given the same duty. In a reported case cited above, in a selection process, teachers were appointed who were termed as ‘Vocational Masters’ and the minimum qualification for applying such posts was Degree in Engineering or Diploma in Engineering with three years of work experience. After completion of the selection process the candidates belonging to both the aforesaid qualifications were given the same duty. However, thereafter, the State of Punjab crated another cadre and termed it as ‘Vocational Teachers’ and granted them additional finance benefit which was challenged by the Association of Vocational Staff Masters and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that they cannot be treated unequally and confirmed the order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by observing that it is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, in this case, the writ petitioner applied for a post for which the minimum qualification is matriculation and with a bachelor degree in Music. For better appreciation, the relevant clauses of the impugned notification are quoted as under: ^^4-¼2½ ¼ÁFke½ 'kkjhfjd f’k{kk f’k{kd%& 'kkjhfjd f’k{kk f’k{kd ¼Áoj.k osrueku½% 7500&250&12000 'kkjhfjd f’k{kk f’k{kd ojh; osrueku% 6500&200&10500 'kkjhfjd f’k{kk f’k{kd ewy dksfV osrueku 5500&175&9000 ¼f}rh;½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUæ ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo’ofo|ky; ls dyk] foKku vFkok okf.kT; esa f}rh; Js.kh esa Lukrd fMxzhA ¼r`rh;½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUæ ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo’ofo|ky; lfefr }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr cksMZ vFkok jkT; ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk Ánr 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk fMxzh ;k fMIyksek ;k ,uŒlhŒVhŒbZŒ ls ekU;rk ÁkIr fdlh laLFkku ls 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk esa fMIyksekA 4-¼3½ ¼ÁFke½ ÁkP; Hkk"kk f'k{kd ¼d½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUæ ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo’ofo|ky; lfefr Ánr vkpk;Z ¼lkfgR; vFkok O;kdj.k½ Qkfty ¼vjch vFkok mnwZ] Qkjlh½ dh fMxzh vFkok laLd`r] Qkjlh] mnwZ] vjch Hkk"kk esa ,eŒ,ŒA ¼[k½ ,sls mEehnokjksa ds fy, Hkh jkT; ljdkj@dsUæ ljdkj@jk"Vªh; v?;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr laLFkku ls chŒ,MŒ dh fMxzh ÁkIr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 4-¼4½ ¼ÁFke½ laxhr f'k{kd laxhr f’k{kd ¼Áoj.k osrueku½% 6500&200&10500 laxhr f’k{kd ojh; osrueku 5500&175&9000 laxhr f’k{kd ewy dksfV osrueku 4500&125&7000 ¼f}rh;½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUæ ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo’ofo|ky; vFkok cksMZ ls Áosf’kdk ¼eSfVªd½ ijh{kksrh.kZA ¼r`rh;½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUæ ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo’ofo|ky; ls laxhr esa Lukrd fMxzh vFkok led{k ;ksX;rkA ¼prqFkZ½ ;s lHkh in lh/kh fu;qfDr ls Hkjs tk;saxsA** 6. Bare reading of the aforesaid clauses reveals that as far as Physical Education Teachers are concerned, the minimum educational qualification is Graduation and either a degree or a Diploma in Physical Education, whereas as far as Assistant Teacher of Music is concerned, the minimum qualification is Matriculation plus Graduation in Music. Thus, we are of the view that the classifications of the two teachers are different and they are expected to give different types of jobs and impart different kinds of educations also. Moreover, in the aforesaid judgment at Para-37, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualification and nature of duty is permissible. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no discrimination in this case. 7. The other salient feature of this case is that the petitioner has been selected under the notification he has challenged. He participated in the selection process and then after being selected and appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Music), he has challenged the very notification under which he has been selected. Such a stand is not permissible. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ application which is dismissed accordingly. 8. No order as to costs. 9. Urgent copies as per Rules.