Holding

The Court held that the appellant was wrongly denied the Grade‑I Teacher pay‑scale of Rs.1640‑2900 and that the respondents' action amounted to unlawful discrimination, thereby quashing the lower‑scale order and directing payment of the higher scale retrospectively.

Summary

The appellant, a full‑time vocational teacher, was appointed in June 1990 with the pay‑scale of Rs.1640‑2900 but was subsequently placed on a lower scale of Rs.1400‑2600 by the Directorate of Education. He challenged this denial, arguing that he possessed the requisite qualifications and that similarly situated teachers were receiving the higher scale. The respondents relied on circulars, including one dated November 20, 1990, which had been set aside by a High Court judgment in a separate writ petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was entitled to the Grade‑I Teacher pay‑scale and whether the denial constituted unlawful discrimination. Finding that the appellant met the qualifications and that other teachers with the same credentials were receiving the higher scale, the Court held the denial discriminatory, quashed the lower‑scale order, and directed the respondents to grant the Rs.1640‑2900 pay‑scale retrospectively from June 14, 1990, with arrears.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant was entitled to the Grade‑I Teacher pay‑scale of Rs.1640‑2900 despite the Directorate's circulars.
Whether the denial of the higher pay‑scale amounted to discrimination violating principles of equality.
Whether the circular dated November 20, 1990, which was set aside in other writ petitions, applied to the appellant.
Whether mandamus could be issued directing the respondents to grant the higher pay‑scale with retrospective effect.

Subjects

service lawpay scaleteacher appointmentsdiscriminationmandamusretrospective reliefcirculars

Judgment

AJAY JADHAV A
v.
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 14, 1999

[S. SAGHIR AHMED AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

Service law :

Appellant employed as a full time teacher-Selected through proper
channel-Post carrying pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900-Selection approved C
with pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600 by Government-Claim of appellant for
parity in scale-Respondent relying on a notification in I 990-Notification
already quashed by High Court in separate proceedings-Similarly placed
teachers getting pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900-Held, action of respondents
amount to discrimination-Respondent directed to give correct ·pay scale D
with retrospective effect.

· The Appellant employed as a full time Teacher in vocational stream in
the Respondent~school, filed a writ petition claiming parity in pay-scale as
that of Grade-I Teachers. The Appellant was employed in the school in June
1990 through proper selection in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The E

- appointment th.ough was approved by the Respondent-Government, he was
given a pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600 instead of Rs. 1640-2900. The Appellant
possessed required qualifications as given in the advertisement. The High
Court rejected the writ petition.

On appeal before this Court, the Respon<Jents contended that the F
appellant was not having the requisite qualification and experience. The
Respondent brought to the notice of this Court the circulars issued by
Directorate of Education under which it was mentioned that certain anomalies
in the pay scale were in existence and as such rationalisation would be
informed in due course. The Respondent contended that by a circular dated
November 20, 1990 it was clarifie.d that candidates possessing requisite G
qualification would be entitled to the pay-scale of Grade-I teacher i.e. Rs.
1640-2900, and that it was on account of this circular that the appellant was
denied the pay-scale. The Respondent brought a circular dated June 30,
1988 wherein it was mentioned that pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 is payable
for teachers with qualification prescribed therein and that the schools are H
371
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A permitted tp appoint less qualified candidates available in a lower scale for
a fixed tenure as a stop gap arrangement with prior approval of the Department

The Appellant contended that the Circular dated November 20, 1990
has been set aside by the High Court in a writ petition filed by three
similarly situated teachers whose pay-scale got downgraded to Rs. 1400-
B 2600 in pursuance of the circular, and that this judgment was not noticed
by the High Court in this case; and that teachers apart from those Writ
Petitioners similarly situated and having the same qualifications are getting
the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900.

Allowing the Appeal, the Court
c
HELD: 1. The appellant has been wrongly denied the pay scale of Rs.
1640-2900 to which he was entitled from June 1990. The letter dated October
25, 1990 of Directorate of Education approving the pay scale of Rs. 1400-
2600 to be given to the appellant is quashed. Mandamus is issued to
D Respondents to give to the appellant the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with
effect from June 14, 1990. [376-D-E)

2. It is not that the appellant was having less qualification than prescribed
in the circu!ar or that his appointment was for a fixed tenure of 3 or 6
months as a stop gap arrangement. Appellant has also pointed out with
E reference to a comparative chart filed in the proceedings that teachers
similarly ~ituated and having the same qualification of Postgraduate Diploma
are getting the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900. [375-H]
--
"CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5043 of
1999.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.98 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 257of1995.

M.S. Ganesh and K.B. Sunder Rajan for the Appellant.

G Ms. A. Subhashini and A. .Ranganadhan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H
D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted.

Appellant, who was employed as full time teacher in Vocational Stream
-
AJAY JADHA V v. GOVT. GOA [D.P. WADHWA, J. j 373
in Murgaon Education Society's Higher Secondary School, respondent No. 3 A
(for short 'the school'), was given lower pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600, but he
said that he was entitled to the scale of Grade-I Teacher of Rs. I 640-2900.· His
claim was denied by the Director of Education, Government of Goa. His writ
petition seeking relief was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench,
by the impugned judgment dated March 5, 1998.
B
Appellant was employed as full time teacher in Computer Programme in
Vocational Stream in the school in July, 1988 for a period of one year. He was
given the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. In June, 1989 appellant was again given
fresh appointment in the same post in the same pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 and
- the appointment was also for a period of one year. Pursuant to fresh
advertisement on May 24, 1990 appellant was once again appointed to the
C

same post, now in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from June 14,
1990. Appellant possessed the qualification of B.Sc., P.G.D.C.A. (Post Graduate
Diploma in Computer Application) and experience of two years and seven
months. He possessed the required qualifications as given in the advertisement.
Appellant was told that this appointment was temporary for the academic year D
1990-91 and that he was liable to be transferred to any of the institution of
the Society. He was also told that the order of appointment was subject to

-
approval of the Director of Education, Goa. On August 6, 1990 a letter was
addressed by the Principal of the school to the Directorate of Education
seeking approval to the grant of Teacher Grade-I pay scale to the appellant E
and it was stated that the appellant had the requisite qualifications and
experience. However, by letter dated October 25, 1990 request of the Principal
of the school was turned down and though the appointment of the appellant
was approved, he was given the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 with effect from
June 14, 1990. Representation of the appellant for granting him pay- scale of
Rs.1640-2900 did not bring any result which led the appellant to file writ F
petition in the High Court. As a matter of fact appellant had claimed pay- scale
of Rs. I 640-2900 from his first appointment since 1988 but before us he claimed
this pay-scale only from June 14, 1990. It was pointed out that the appellant
is still working in the same very school in the pay- scale of Rs.1400-2600.

Cause of the appellant has been opposed on the ground that he was
G

-· not having the required qualification for the. post which required the Post
Graduate Degree and not the Post Graduate Diploma. It was admitted that a
circular dated June 30, 1988 was issued by the Directorate of Education under
which qualifications prescribed by NCERT (National Council for Education,
Research and Training) for teachers of various courses prescribing pay-scale H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A for Teachers prade-1 as Rs.1640-2900. Subsequently a circular dated August
13, 1990 was' issued by the Directorate of Education wherein it was stated that
a doubt had arisen whether the same pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 was also to
be given to all incumbents holding alternate qualifications in the descending
grade and that a reference was made to NCERT which had stated that "so far
as the pay scales are concerned the States have to decide about it, keeping
B in view the prevalent norms pay structure for similar categories of the teachers
in the State." It was thus mentioned that certain anomalies in the pay-scale
were in existence and as such rationalisation of pay-scales by setting right
the existing anomalies woµld be informed in due course of time. By another
circular dated November 20, 1990 it was clarified that candidates possessing
C requisite qualification, i.e., Post Graduate Degree would be entitled to the pay-
scale of Grade-I Teacher, i.e., Rs.1640-2900. It was on account of this circular
that the appellant was denied the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900.

Appellant has submitted that the circular dated November 20, 1990 was
set aside by the judgment of the High Court dated February 11, 1992 in Writ
D Petition No. 61 of 1991, filed by three teachers similarly situated. These
teachers were in the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 which they were getting and
in view of the circular of November 20, 1990 were down-graded to the pay-.
scale of Rs. 1400-2600 from November 1990. High Court had ordered that the
pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 be restored to them with effect from November
1990. It was stated that this judgment was not noticed by the High Court in
E the impugned judgment. Reference was then drawn to the circular dated June
30, I 988. This circular we reproduce as under:-

"The Heads of Higher Secondary Schools and Higher Secondary
Units of Colleges are hereby informed that the qualifications prescribed
by NCERT for Gr. I Teachers and Part Time teachers to be appointed
F for various vocational subjects introduced in your school under the
vocationalisation of Education at +2 stage are furnished in the
Annexure enclosed for guidance and necessary action. The said
qualifications are worked out and approved by NCERT and may be
considered for the appointment of teachers as said above.
G
The pay scale prescribed for the· Gr. I teacher with above
qualifications i's 1640-2900. In this regard, it is informed that if the
schools do not get the qualified candidates as prescribed in spite of
their efforts made by notifying the vacancies in the local Employinent
·-
Exchange, Local Newspapers and All India Newspapers, the schools
H are permitted to appoint less qualified candidates available in a lower
AJAY JADHAV v. GOVT. GOA [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 375
scale for a fixed tenure of three or six months, as a stop gap arrangement A
with prior approval of this Department. Rest of the recruitment
procedure will be the same as laid down in the Education Rules.

Sd/-
(S.V. Kurade)
Director of Education" B

Annexure to this circular, in so far as the qualificatioh of the appel~ant is
concerned, is as under :

Name of the Qualifications Qualifications
Vocational Course prescribed by the prescribed by the C
NCERT for Full Time NCERT for Part-
Teachers Time Teachers

8. Computer (i) B. Tech/B.E. or equivalent
Technique/ in Computer Science/
Computer Programme Engineering
Assistant .(ii) Diploma/Post Diploma with
2 years experience
(iii) Masters Degree in
Computer Application E
(iv) B.Sc. in Computer
Science with 3 years
programming experience
(v) M.Sc. in Physics or Maths
or Statistics or Chemistry OR F
M.A. Economics and
Post Graduate Diploma in
Computers with 3 years
programming experience
G
It is not that the appellant was having less qualification than prescribed
in the circular or that his appointment was for a fixed tenure of 3 or 6 months
as a stop gap arrangement. Appellant has also pointed out with reference to
a comparative chart filed in the proceedings that teachers similarly situated
and having the same qualifications are getting the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900.
These teachers are apart from the three teachers in the writ petition No. 61 H
37,6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A of 1991, mentioned above. There has been no reply to this submission of the
appellant as to how other teachers with the same qualification are getting
higher pay-scale of Grade-I Teacher. It appears to us that it is a clear case of
discrimination.

It was then contended on behalf of the Directorate of Education that
B the circular dated November 20, 1990 which had been set aside by the
judgment of the High Court in writ petition No. 61 of 1991 concerned only
three writ petitioners and the circular had not been set aside generally. That
may be so but the fact remains that the three writ petitioners were possessing
the same qualifications, i.e., they were not having Post Graduate Degree and
C were having Post Graduate Diploma and yet had been held entitled to the
Grade-I Teacher pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900. That judgment, it appears, has
been accepted by the Government of Goa.

We are of the view that the appellant has been wrongly denied the pay-
scale ofRs.1640-2900 to which he was entitled to from June 14, 1990. The
·n impugned judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. Letter dated
October 25, 1990 of the Directorate of Education approving the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2600 to be given to the appellant with effect from June 14, 1990 is
quashed. Mandamus is issued to the respondents I and 2, being the
Government of Goa and the Directorate of Education, to give to the appellant
E the pay-scale ofRs.1640-2900 with effect from June 14, 1990. Arrears be paid
to the appellant within two months.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed with costs.

V.M. Appeal allowed.

' .

_..,..