KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by on Shri F.C. Puri, an Assistant Director in the; Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur in the questioned Documents Section, for an appropriate writ, direction or order. He prays that a portion of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales Rules, 1969, as also certain remarks appearing In Columns 4, 5, and 6, respectively of the Schedule I to these Rules be struck down being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan in the questioned Documents Section in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 7 -1 -60. It was mentioned in the advertisement that 5 posts of Assistant Directors in the scale of pay Rs. 200 -15 -275 -20 -375 -EB -25 -600 were to be filled in the qualifications prescribed were, besides the age for which there is no dispute, M.Sc. in Physics or Chemistry in the second Division and training in Photography; or Photomicrography and training in examination of questioned documents and forged currency notes in some Government Laboratory. It was however, mentioned that age and other qualifications could be relaxed by the Commission in its discretion in the case of candidates who were otherwise well qualified or for departmental candidates under exceptional circumstances the petitioner was a Bachelor of Science with Physics and Mathematics and therefore, it appears that the Commission in the exercise of their discretion relaxed the academic qualifications and then recommended the petitioner for appointment. By an order of the Government dated 20 -5 -61 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory in the questioned Document Section on probation for one year. He was confirmed on the post by an order dated 2 -5 -61 on successful completion of the probation period there was a revision of pay scales in Rajasthan generally on the promulgation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1961, hereinafter to be referred as the '1961 Rules' and accordingly the pay grade of an Assistant Director in the Forensic Science Laboratory came to be revised to Rs. 225 -15 -270 -20 -390 -25 -640 with effect from 1 -9 -61 the petitioner got his pay slip in the revised pay grade on 9.1.63.the 1961 Rules were amended in 1965 by a Government notification dated 11.6.65 as a result thereof the pay grade of an Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory came to be revised to Rs. 360 -25 -560 -30 -590 -EB -30 -860 -900 with a minimum start of Rs. 435/ - In accordance with the aforesaid amendment of 1961 Rules the petitioner was issued a revised pay slip by the Accountant General on 9 -7 -65 effective from 1 -6 -65.the Government then appointed a Pay Commission known as 'Ranawat Pay Commission' for a thorough examination of the existing pay structure of all the employees of the Rajasthan Government and to propose revision of pay Scales. On 1.7.68, the Ranawat Pay Commission submitted its report regarding the revision of pay grades to the Government the petitioner claims that the Ranawat Pay Commission recommended pay grade of Rs. 700 40 -1100 -50 -1200 for Assistant Director in the Forensic Science Laboratory the petitioner proceeds to state that the State Cabinet accepted the recommendations of the Ranawat Pay Commission and accordingly it had accented the proposal for revising the pay grade of on Assistant Director in the Forensic Science Laboratory to Rs. 700 -1200. According to the petitioner, this revised pay grade was to be allowed to the incumbents irrespective of their academic qualifications. However, when effect was sought to be given to the Government decision accepting the recommendations of the Ranawat Pay Commission and the Rajasthan Civil Service (New Pay Scale) Rules, 1969, hereinafter to be. referred as the '1969 Rules' there was a departure from the Cabinet decision and the impugned provisions were made in the Rules. I may here read the relevant provisions of the 1969 Rules.
(3.) RULE 1 contains the short title. Rule 2 lays down the categories of Government servants to whom the Rules apply. Rule 3 vests power in the Governor to order relaxation of Rules and it runs as follows: Rule 3. Relaxation of rules Where the Governor is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules undue hardship in any particular case, he may, by order, relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Rule 4 is about interpretation. Rule 5 contains certain definitions. Rule 6, the portion of which is under challenge in the present writ petition, runs as follows: Rule 6 Drawal of Pay in New Pay Scales. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules a Government servant shall draw pay in the New Pay Scales applicable to the post which he is holding on 1.9.1968, or to which he is appointed on or after 1.9.1968. (ii) In respect of any Service/Cadre or Class of posts for which no rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or where a post/posts have not been included in the Schedule appended to Rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service, the academic qualifications and experience as prescribed by or with the concurrence of the Finance Department from time to time shall continue to be operative and shall be deemed to have been made applicable to such Service/Cadre or class of posts in the New Pay Scale with effect from 1.9.68, provided that, where additional or revised qualifications have been specified in column 6 of the Schedule I, (embodied as remarks) the pay in the New Pay Scales shall not be drawn until such additional or revised qualifications are possessed or acquired by the Government servant. Then there is a long Schedule attached to these Rules. This Schedule has a number of sections. Section A enumerates the various pay grades introduced by the 1969 Rules there are in all 33 pay grades. Section B makes provision for the pay grades of State Services the general pattern teems to be that the first column is Serial Number, the second column contains the name of post, the third column contains the existing pay scale, the fourth column contains the new pay scale and the last column indicates the number of the scale, the post of Assistant Director in the Forensic Science Laboratory is shown under the Police Department the relevant entry is as follows: 2. Senior Scale 560 -950 700 -1200 (22).Admissibility of scale to the existingemployees is subject to the fulfilment ofthe following qualifications:(1) Assistant Director (Questioned Documents Section)(a) M. Sc. II Division in Physics or Chemistry.(b) Training in Photography and Photo Micrography.(C) Training in Examination of QuestionedDocuments and ForgidCurrency Notes in some GovernmentLaboratory. The petitioner contends that while the petitioner was in the cadre of Assistant Directors in the Forensic Science Laboratory and had been appointed in relaxation of the provision in the advertisement for possessing the M. Sc. qualification in Second Glass, the remarks column in the above entry by introducing the requirement of M.Sc. Second Class creates a discrimination as between the officers belonging to the same cadre. While persons having the academic qualifications laid down will get the higher grade, the petitioner shall get the lower grade. According to the petitioner, once the incumbents are put in one cadre giving of separate pay scales to persons belonging to the same cadre is discriminatory the petitioner further contends that once the Public Service Commission had relaxed the requirement of academic qualification in the advertisement and the petitioner entered the cadre of Assistant Directors in the Forensic Science Laboratory the petitioner by fiction shall be deemed to possess the requisite academic qualifications whenever the pay scales are revised or whenever there is a question of further promotion the petitioner lastly, contended that the Governor had made the relaxation under Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules in cases of others and, therefore, he should have made such a relaxation in favour of the petitioner as well and on this score also the petitioner has been subjected to a discriminatory treatment. The writ petition has been opposed by the State. It is denied that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules or the relevant entry in the Schedule appended to the Rules and which has been extracted above were violative of Articles 4 or 16 of the Constitution or were otherwise invalid It is submitted that it is open to the State to give a higher pay scale to incumbents possessing higher academic qualifications in comparison to those who do not have such qualifications as the grouping or classification has a clear object of imparting efficiency in the administration. It was further submitted that the cadre of Assistant Directors in the Forensic Science Laboratory has a number of groups, like (1) Chemical,(2) Physical, (3) Ballastic, (4) Biological section they, according to the State, require more technical work with latest scientific methods in comparison to the Assistant Director, In charge of questioned Documents and, therefore, according to the State higher qualifications and experience were essential for the incumbents of these posts and consequently the petitioner who did not possess the academic qualification of being M.Sc. in Second Class cannot have the same higher pay scale as was given to the other Assistant Directors.;