- (1.) THE petitioner Surendra Natn Misra, who appointed as Lecturer in English Department of K. N. Government Degree College, Gyanpur, which is a Government College, on 30th October, 1961, in the pay scale of Rs. 250-500, and imparted education to the students of Graduate and Post Graduate classes and was selected by the Public Service Commission as Lecturer in the said institution in the pay-scale of Rs. 225-450 on 24th August, 1962 and was directed by the Government to continue to impart education in K. N. Government Post Graduate College, Gyanpur in the pay scale of Rs. 250-500, in which capacity he was working since 30th October, 1961, by means of this writ petition, he has challenged the vires of Rule 20 (l) (c) of U. P. Higher Education (Group-A) Services Rules, 1985. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite-parties to fix the seniority of Lecturers from the date of their appointment in service by giving credit of continuous length of service and by making promotion on the basis of seniority as such and not with effect from 5tp June, 1972, from which date the Degree College Lecturers were declared Gazetted Officers.
(2.) IT was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that prior to 4th September, 1973 the Lecturers who were imparting education to Graduate classes and the teachers who were imparting education to Post Graduate were treated as two different cadres, but by means of the Government Order dated 4th September, 1973, both the cadres of teachers were merged into one cadre. IT was provided in the said Government Order, dated 4th September, 1973, that as since 5th June, 1972, all those Lecturers who were imparting education in Government Degree Colleges became Gazetted Officers, hence the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 9 (31) (C) of Financial Handbook Vol. 2 to 4 has directed that from that date all the Lecturers imparting education in Government Degree Colleges in the scale of Rs. 250-25-330-E. B.-25-450-E. B.-30-600, will be treated as one cadre. The question as to whether if two persons appointed on, different cadres are amalgamated into one cadre and they continued as such for about a decade or more, can again be discriminated, deserve to be tested on the scale of the provisions of equality, as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to Rule 20 (l) (c), of the impugned rules it has been provided that a lecturer recruited by the Commission for appointment in the post-graduate colleges and appointed as such before June 5, 1972 shall be senior to a lecturer recruited by the Commission for appointment in Degree College as appointed as such. The object sought to be achieved from the said provision appear to be, that those who have been imparting education in post Graduate classes prior to June 5, 1972, shall be senior to a teacher recruited by the Commission for appointment in Degree Collage, as appointed as such. If that is so, then what would be the relevancy of that cut off date, that is, June 5, 1972. The effect of the said rule would be, that if a lecturer recruited by the Commission for appointment in the Post Graduate Colleges and appointed as such on 5th June, 1972, would not be senior to a lecturer, recruited by the Commission for appointment in Degree College, as appointed as such. In the counter-affidavit this cut off date has sought to be explained that on 5th June, 1972, all the lecturers working in Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges have been made Gazetted Officers. We are not able to understand as to what is the nexus of the conformation of powers of Gazetted Officers upon the lecturers for purposes of determining their seniority. If the rule would have conferred certain benefits like Selection Scale, or Suppertime Scale to those who were appointed lecturers in Post Graduate Colleges prior to 5th June, 1972, probably it could be tested on the scale of equality. It is not disputed that the lecturers whether imparting education. in Degree Colleges or post Graduate Colleges are recruited by the Commission. There is no differentiation in the minimum qualifications of such lecturers whether they impart education in Degree Colleges or Post Graduate Government Colleges. The minimum qualification of their appointment are the same. The duties which are assigned to them are also similar ; meaning thereby that they teach graduate classes as well as post graduate classes. The petitioner before us, has categorically stated that he has been taking the classes of Degree as well as post Graduate. Earlier more than a decade back the lecturers, imparting education in Degree classes and post Graduate classes were treated as separate cadre, but both the cadres were amalga mated into one cadre, and that process continued till the- year 1985, when the aforementioned rule came into effect.
(3.) IN the case of D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of INdia, AIR 1983 SC 130, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. A. Desai (as he then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench indicated : "the fundamental principle is that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. It was further indicated : "legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfied the twin tests of reasons able and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would have to affirmatively satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. It can only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the rational principle on which classification is founded but correlates it to the objects sought to be achieved. fixing the specified date for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, it was held 'the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and being wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the. . ,. eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, the eligibi lity for liberalised pension scheme of 'being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date' in the memo randa, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. " In the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A. V. R. Siddhanti and others, AIR 19/4 SC 1755, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Sarkaria (as he then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench in which Hon'ble Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer (as he then was) was also a Member indicated in Para 35 of the report :-- "the impugned directions of 1957 and 1961, in so far as they pertain to categories (ii) and (iii) are hit by this rule in Koshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) SCR 185 : AIR 1967 SC 1889, according to which once the persons coming or recruited to the ser vice from two different sources-in that case promotees and direct recruits-are absorbed into one integrated, class with identical service conditions, they cannot be discriminated against with reference to the original source, for the purposes of further promotion to the higher grade. What was said about further promotion in Roshan Lal Tandon ' case (supra), is equally appli cable to absorption and seniority in the instant case. ";