Holding

Graduate teachers constitute a separate class and cannot be conditioned on JST/JAV training for higher pay; the requirement of such training is unconstitutional and violates Article 14.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether Junior Basic Trained (JBT) teachers classified under Category B Group II of the 1957 Punjab Government circular were entitled to the higher pay scale solely on acquiring higher academic qualifications such as B.A., B.T. or B.Ed., without the additional requirement of JST/JAV professional training. The petitioners argued that the circular’s phrase “plus JAV training” applied only to matriculate JBT teachers and that imposing a training condition on graduate teachers violated Article 14’s equality clause. The State contended that the higher pay was limited to those who satisfied both the qualification and the professional‑training criteria. Relying on earlier decisions (Kirpal Singh Bhatia, Labh Singh Garcha, Avtar Singh) the Court held that graduate teachers form a distinct class and cannot be subjected to an extra training requirement, as it creates an irrational classification within a class. Consequently, the Court directed the State to grant the higher pay scale to all Category B Group II teachers who had attained the requisite qualifications, with effect from the dates of their qualification, and allowed the writ petitions with costs.

Issues considered

Whether JBT teachers in Category B Group II are entitled to higher pay solely on acquiring higher academic qualifications, without JST/JAV training.
Whether the classification ‘plus JAV training’ violates the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the State Government can lawfully restrict the higher pay to teachers who possess professional training in addition to academic qualifications.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Punjab Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955s. Rule 10

Subjects

Article 14EqualityClassificationTeachers’ Pay RevisionJST/JAV TrainingDiscriminationPunjab Educational Services RulesConstitutional Law

Judgment

PUNJAB HIGHER QUALIFIED TEACHERS UNION
A
(NON-PETITIONERS) & ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

FEBRUARY 23, 1988
B
IA.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

) Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-C/assification for
purposes of revision of pay-Punjab Educational Services Class Ill
School Cadre Rules 1955, Rule 10--Graduate teachers falling in Cate-
gory B Group II-Form class by themselves-Cannot be subjected to
~urther requirement of having JST/JAV training for entitlement to
J. c
f "higher pay scale.
Punjab Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules 1955:
Rule 10 and State Government Circular dated July 23, 1957-Category
B Group II JBT teachers-Whether entitled to higher pay scale on D
acquiring higher educational qualifications of B.A., B.T./B.A ..
B. Ed-Expression 'plus JAV training'-Interpretation of.

The State Government by Circular dated July 23, 1957 directed
revision of the existing pay scales of various categories of subordinate
staff including Teachers in the Education Department. Paragraph 3 of E
the said circular provided for revision of pay-scales of Teachers and
placed them into two distinct categories, Category A and Category B
and laid down the requirements of academic qualification with respect
to each of them. Category B was further sub-divided into two groups
viz:
F
\#.Group I- Matric with Basic training (including Junior Teachers).

Group II- Junior School Teachers (including Assistant Mistresses
with BA/lnter/Matric plus JAV training).

On more occasions than one, this Court intervened on behalf of G
""-· those Teachers who had ill!proved or acquired higher academic qualifi-
,,.. cations and were denied higher scales of pay, and issued directions for
extending the benefit of para 3 of the aforesaid Circular.

In compliance with the directions of this Court in Avtar Singh v.
Manmohan Singh & Anr., the Director of Public Instructions (Schools) H
1087
J
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 2 S.C.R.

A by Order dated June 30, 1986 accorded sanction to payment of arrears
of pay to Teachers belonging to Category B Group I, to 3600 JBT
Teachers belonging to Category B Group II who had improved their
educational qualifications and acquired degrees in B.A., B.T.f1'.A.,
B.Sc., B.Ed. etc. Similar relief was however denied to 6,000 other
Teachers falling in Category B Group II on the ground that they did not
B have requisite professional training of JST/JAV, and were therefore not
entitled to the higher grade.

c
In the Writ Petitions to this Court, by the Matricalate Junior
Basic Trained Teachers In Governmeiit Schools placed in Category B,
Group II of the Circular dated July 23, 1957 it was contended that the
State Government was bound to grant the benefit of higher grade of pay /
to all the Teachers belonging to Category B Group II on their improving,~
-
or acquiring higher educational qualifications as and from the respec· ·
tive dates of their passing the examination, and that·it was not open to
the Government on the pretext of verification of claims to confine the
relief to some of the teachers and deny the same to the others who were
D all similarly situated and recruited in the same manner and appointed
as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had improved their qualifications by
acquiring degrees in B.A., B. T. etc., and that the so-called professional
training i.e. JST /JAV could not be made a condition pre-requisite to the
grant of higher pay.

E These petitions were contested by the State Government by con·
tending that the petitioners were not entitled to higher pay merely on
their acquiring higher educational qualifications as they did not stand
the eligibility test on verification of their _claims, and that according to
paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers according to their qualifica·
-
tions were placed into two broad categories for purposes of revision of
F pay, Category A consisting of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Sc. (Agriculture)
and BT, and Category B of whom Group I was 'Matric with basic \. -<
training (Including JBT)'. ~

On the question: whether JBT Teachers falling under Category B t ...v

Group II were not entitled to the higher pay merely on their acquiring
G higher Educational Qualifications of B.A., B.T.fB.A., B.Ed. etc. but
that gaining professional experience of JST /JA V training was essential.
" '
-~
Allowing the Writ Petitions,
'
BELD: 1. Graduate Teachers form a class by themselves and
H cannot be subjected to the further requirement of having JST/JAV
PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUN'AB [SEN, J.] 1089

training. The words 'plus JAV training' clearly qualify the work
'Matric' and relate only two Matriculate JBT Teachers. Such a classi- A
fication for revision of pay satisfies the touchstone of Article 14,
and would render the action of the State Government in seeking to
discriminate between Graduate Teachers with JST /JA V training and
Graduate Teachers with or without such training, impermissible
as the attempt is to create a class within a class without any rational B
basis. [1095D-FJ

2. It is regrettable that despite clear pronouncements made by
this Court as well as the High Court in a long line of decisions there is no
redressaJ of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging to Category B
\ Group II although they had acquired B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. quali- C
f'~cations. [1095F-G]

3. The petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category B
Group II, are entitled to higher pay on acquiring or improving their
""I
' academic qualifications. The respondents are directed to give them
the higher scale of pay as admissible to Teachers in Category B Group D
,,,J I with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the quali-
fication. [1097B-C I

State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpa/ Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1976] l
SCR 529; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh Garcha & Ors., (C.A.
Nos. 926-27/77 decided on August 7, 1979); andAvtar Singh v. Manmo- E
han Singh & Anr., (C.A. No. 3790/83 decided on September 14, 1984,
referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 63 &
\. 449 of 1986 etc.
F
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

. •
A.K. Ganguli, A. Sharan and G.S. Chatterjee for the Peti-
tioners .

R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. G
_:)
"' The J udgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. This is a batch of petitions under Art. 32 of the
Constitution filed on behalf of Matriculate Junior Basic Trained
Teachers in Government Schools placed in Category B, Group II in H
1-

•j

\;i
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 2 S.C.R.
1·
A terms of paragraph 3 of the State Government Circular dated July 23,
1957 who have been continuously and unrelentlessly struggling to get ".. r'

the benefit of higher grade of pay on their improving or acquiring
higher qualification viz. B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed./Matric with JST/
Gyani or Prabhakar, as per the terms thereof, and the persistent re- l
fusal of the State Government to adhere to the terms of the said
B Circular mainly on the ground that such teachers on their improving or
acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service would ~
not automatically be placed in different grades commensurate with
their academic qualifications unless they had the professional qualifi-
cation of requisite experience of a post carried in the higher grade
irrespective of the number of posts available in the department in that
category. It is asserted that the aforesaid Circular was couched in )
-
c somewhat ambiguous language and has resulted in different interpre-, ~
tations and it was never the intention of the Government to undertake
the continuing unintended heavy financial burden that had arisen be-
cause of the faulty drafting of the Circular.

D It is common ground that by the aforesaid Circular dated July 23,
1957 the State Government directed revision of the existing pay scales
of various categories of subordinate offices including Teachers in the
"'
Education Department. Paragraph 3 thereof provided for revision of
pay-scales of Teachers and placed them into two distinct categories,
namely, Category A and Category B and inter alia laid down the

-
E requirement of academic qualifications with respect to each. The
relevant part of paragraph 3 reads as follows:

"3. Teachers in the Education Department: It has been
decided that all teachers according to their qualifications
should be placed in the following two broad categories: <
F
CATEGORY 'A' ~( """

..
/

B.A./B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc. (Agriculture)/and B.T./Diploma I
in Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Training.

G CATEGORY 'B'
•
Group 1-Matrics with Basic Training (including Junior
Teachers)
""
Group II-Junior School Teachers (including Assistant !'"

H Mistresses with B.A./lnter/Matric plus J .A. V. Training)."
PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB (SEN, J.J 1091

It is quite evident that the revision of pay of Teachers was based A
on the principle of linking pay to qualification. It would not be out of
place to mention that the Kothari Commission constituted by the State
Government of Punjab considered in great detail the scales of pay of
Teachers. The Commission strongly expressed the view that the scales
of pay of Teachers should be linked to educational qualifications.
Accepting the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, the State B
Government of Haryana in 1968 directed further revision of scales of
pay of Teachers working in Government Schools w.e.f. December 1,
1967.

" On more occasions than one, this Court had to intervene on
behalf of these unfortunate Teachers for the redressal of the wrong C
\ done to them by denial of higher scales of pay on their improving or
··-l .acquiring higher academic qualifications and issued directions for ex-
. tending the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to them. Despite the
repeated directions, the State Government has been adamant in not
complying with such directions on one pretext or another. In State of.
Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., (1976] 1SCR529 this D
Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Union of India & Ors. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., (1972] SLR 402
directing that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A. B.Ed. qualifications
would be entitled to the higher scale of pay. The Court construed the
aforesaid Circular as falling within the ambit of r. 10 of the Punjab·
Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 as to the E
entitlement of higher scales of pay and held that it had the effect of
fixing the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications. It was
accordingly held that Teachers who possessed the degree of B.T. or
the eguivalent on May 1, 1957 would be entitled to scales of pay
commensurate with such higher qualification, and as to the Teachers
> who acquired such higher qualification thereafter, they would be F
,. entitled to their revised scale of pay w.e.f. the date they passed the
'r-.,J, examination. It categorically repelled the contention on behalf of the
. .Government that there could be no automatic revision of the scales of
pay dependent upon the higher qualifications and unequivocally held
that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications became
entitled to the revised scales of pay according to Category A w.e.f. the G
date they passed the examination in terms of paragraph 3 of the
Circular.

In Labh Singh Garcha & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (W.P.
No. 1810/76 decided on July 20, 1976), Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking
for himself and Surinder Singh, J. allowed the writ petition filed by H
-----------------·----------,

1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R.

1\ JBT Teachers falling in Category B wh~ claimed the benefit of highe"(
scales of pay as done in the case of Graduate Teachers in Categroy A
pursuant to the High Court's decree in Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case. The
Court found that the al:tion of the Government in denying to the JBT
Teachers who had acquired or improved their educational qualifica-
B tion, the benefit of the higher scales of pay, was per se discriminatory
and accordingly issued a direction to the State Government to rele~
to them the reVised scales of pay admissible to them in terms of '
paragraph 3 of the Circular. The State .Government carried an appeal
to this Court. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh Garcha & Ors.,
(C.A. Nos. 926-27n7 decided on August 7, 1979) this Court held that
the matter was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in
c Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case and observed that 'no new point arises' and,
accordingly dismissed the appeal. .~

The State Government having failed to carry out the directions
issued, the JBT Teachers with higher qualifications were constrained
D to move the High Court for contempt but it declined to interfere.
Aggrieved, the Teachers came up in appeal. At the hearing of Avtar
Singh v. Manmohan ·Singh & Anr., (C.A. 3790/83 decided on,
September 14, 1984), the Court indicated that the view taken by th't
High Court did not commend to it and wanted learned counsel for the
State Government to ascertain the attitude of the Government. At his
E request, the matter was adjourned. At the resumed hearing, h~
signified the willingness of the State Government to comply with the
directions given by this Court. The Court accordingly set aside the
judgment of the High Court and directed the State Government to
·-implement the order passed in Labh Singh Garcha's case within three
months, holding that the appellants and other petitioners in the Hi~
F .· Court and Teachers similarly situate i.e. JBT Teachers with higher
··, qualifications, were entitled to the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circu-
'--.. °' Jar. It pointed out that the Director of public Instructions (Schools),
... Punjab by her affidavit dated Februafy 5, 1980 ,had unconditionally
agreed to implement the same without any reservation. As regards
- such Teachers who had not approached the Court but were similarly
G situate, the Court directed that they must make an application for
seeking benefit of the aforesaid Circular.
. . .
By a clarificatory order dated February 21, 1985, the Court
·+
--- ·clarified that every Teacher entitled to the benefit of the earlier order
may make an application within six weeks from that date. It however
H made a direction to the following effect: ·
PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB ISBN, J.] 1093

"In .the application the teacher should strive as best she/he A
could to set out his claim as directed herein. The Director
may verify the claim with reference to record he may have
and the eligibility for relief. But if the claim is of a teacher
who was a petitioner in this Court or in the High Court,
eligibility enquiry is impermissible, only amount of claim
may be verified. The Director of Education shall process all B
the applications received by him in the manner he thinks fit
but he must make the payment within three months from
the date of the receipt of the application."

Emphasis sµpplied

\ In compliance therewith the Director of Public Instructions c
-f '-(Schools), Punjab by order dated 30th June, 1986 accorded sanction to
make payment of arrears of pay according to Teachers belonging to
Category B Group I, to 3,600 JBT Teachers falling in Category B
Group II who had improved their educational qualifications and
acquired degrees in B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc., but denied similar D
relief to other 6,000 Teachers falling in Category B Group II i.e. the
petitioners, on the ground that they did not have the requisite profes-
sional training of JST/JAV and therefore not entitled to the higher
grade. The impugned order proceeds on the premise that eligibility for
the claim for JST grade which was a higher grade, did not depend upon
acquiring a higher educational qualification ofB.A., B.T. etc, but also E

.. to having the requisite professional training i.e. JST/JAV training and
further that a higher grade was only allowed to the then existing JST
Teachers which was a diminishing cadre at)d since recruitment to that
cadre had been stopped, there was no question of any entitlement of
such Teachers to acquiring the necessary professional training. In
other words, the Government has adopted the stand that the right of F
the JBT Teachers belonging to Category B Group II to the higher scale
admissible to Teachers placed in Category B Group I could not simply
be based on their educational qualification.

In support of these petitions Shri A.K. Ganguly, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, with infinite care took us through all the G
orders referred to above and rightly submitted that the State Govern-
ment having given an undertaking in Avtar Singh's case that they are
prepared to carry out the directions made by the High Court, they are
bound to grant the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to all the
Tea<;hers belonging to Category B Group II entitled to the higher
gra_de of pay on their acquiring or improving their qualification, as. H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A from the respective dates of their passing the examination. He further 'f,'.:' l
submitted that it was not open to the Government on the pretext of
verification of claims to confine the relief to some of the teachers and ~
deny the same to the others who were all similarly situate, recruited in
the same manner and appointed as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had
improved their qualifications by acquiring degrees in B.A., B.T. etc.
B and the so-called professional training i.e. JST/JAV could not be made
a condition pre-requisite to the grant of higher pay. t-"
In reply Shri R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the State Govern-
ment, with his usual fairness accepted that the Government was bound
by the undertaking given inAvtar Singh's case but contended that even
C so, the petitioners were not entitled to such higher pay as they did no!
stand the eligibility test on verification of their claims merely on thei; J
acquiring higher educational qualification. He pointed out that accord~
ing to paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers according to their ·
qualifications were placed into two broad categories for purposes of
revision of pay, Category A consisting of B.A/B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc
D (Agriculture) and BT, and Category B consisting of 4 groups of whom
Group I was 'Matrics with basic training (including JBT)'. There were
three scales of pay in Category B-Lower Rs.60-120, Middle Rs.120-
175 and Upper Rs.140-200. By way of incentive, it was directed that
posts falling in these grounds wo11ld be in the following proportion-
Group I, Lower Scale 85%, Middle Scale 15%. 15% of Teachers in
E this group had to be straightway promoted to the Middle Scale by
selection based on seniority and merit, while the rest were given the
Lower Scale. The scale of Rs.60-120 was later revised to Rs.125-300, .,
that of Rs.120-175 to Rs.150-300 and that of Rs.140-200 to Rs.480-880
w.e.f. lst November, 1966, 16th July, 1975 and lst January, 1978. In
contrast, Junior Secondary Trained/Junior Anglo-Vernacular
F Teachers with JST/JAV teachers training qualifications were placed in
Category B Group II and their pay-scale was not revised. The then~
existing incumbents in this category were allowed to retain their exist- . . ·.
ing pay-scale of Rs.80-250 which was subsequently revised from time _
to time as per conditions of their service. As a diminishing cadre, they
were therefore carried on a protected pay-scale of B.A., B.T.
G Teachers viz. Rs.620-1200. According to the learned courisel, the '
question before the Court is whether JBT Teachers placed in Category • JI
B Group II have to be given the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.620- •
1200. This, he says, cannot be done as these Teachers were not entitled'
to initial scale of Rs.80-250 meant only for Junior Secondary Trained/
Junior Anglo-Vernacular Teachers with JST/JAV training qualifica-
H tion i.e. Teachers governed by the protected category. At the hearing
PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB !SEN, J.] 1095

we directed the State Government to clarify its stand on the eligibility A
test of Category B Group II Teachers to higher pay. The Director of
Public Instructions (Schools), Pubjab and the Deputy Director
(School Admn), Office of the Director of Public Instructions have
accordingly filed their additional affidavits dated lOth November, 1986
and 9th March, 1987. The petitioners have also placed on record their
written submissions in answer to these additional affidavit. B
i
The controversy is now limited to the question whether JBT
1 .., Teachers falling under Category B Group II are not entitled to the
' higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational qualification
of B.A. B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc. but that gaining professional experi-
ence of JST/JAV training was essential. That must tum on the relevant C
\clause in paragraph 3 relating to them which may be extracted below:
-{ .
"Category 'B' Group II-Junior School Teachers (includ-
ing Assistant Mistresses with B.R./lnterjMatric plus
J.A.V. Training)."
D
As a matter of plain construction, we are quite clear in our mind
that Graduate Teachers form a class by themselves and cannot be
::::I
subjected to the further requirement of having JST/JAV training. The
words 'plus JAV training' clearly qualify the word 'Matric' and relate
only to Matriculate JBT Teachers. Such a classification for revision of
pay satisfies the touchstone of Art. 14 and would render the action of E
i

-
the State Government in seeking to discriminate between Graduate
Teachers with JST/JAV training and Graduate Teachers with or with-
out such training, impe1missible as the attempt is to create a class
,.,;
within a class without any rational basis.

We must accordingly uphold contention of the petitioners that F
they are entitled to higher pay on acquiring or improving their
~~academic qualification. It is regrettable that despite clear pronounce-
ments made by this Court as well as the High Court in a long line of
decisions starting with Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case, there is no redressal
of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging to Category B Group II
> although they had acquired B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications. G
Quite recently, in Chaman Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1987) 3
SCC 113, Chinnappa Reddy, J. has considered the question in some
depth. The learned Judge repelled the contention of the State Govern-
ment of Haryana based on its order dated Sth September, 1979 which
was sought to. be interpreted to mean that the Teachers who had
acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. qua!ification subsequent to lst December, H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R, ,.
A 1967, the date on which the 1968 order came into force, and before Sth
September, 1979, would be entitled-to the higher grade but w.e.f. Sth I
September, 1979 only and that those wbo acquired the qualification
subsequent to tbat date would not be entitled to the higher grade.
According to the High Court in that case, the 1968 order did away with
the principle of the 1957 order that Teachers who acquired B.T. or
B B.Ed. qualification should get the higher grade and that a concession
was shown in 1979 enabling the Teachers who acquired the B.T. or I
B .Ed. qualification be~een 1968 and 1979 to get the higher scale from
j

c
1979. This Court held that the view taken by the High Court could not
be sustained and observed:

"The principle that pay should be linked to qualification
was accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 a,nd when )
-
Kirpal Singh Bhatia case was argued in the High Court and""-"r
in the Supreme Court there was not the slightest whisper
that tlie principle had been departed from in the 1968
order. In fact the 1968 order expressly stated that the
D government had accepted the Kothari Commission's report
in regard to scales of pay and as already pointed out by us ~
the main feature of the Kothari Commissinn's report in
regard to pay was the linking of pay to qualification. That
was apparently the reason why no such argument was
advanced in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case. Even subsequently
E when several writ petitions were disposed of by the High t
Court of Punjab and Haryana and when the government
issued consequential orders, it was never suggested that the
1968 order was a retraction from the principle of qualifica-
tion linked pay."
-
F The Learned !udge then said:

"The 1968 order must be read in the light of the 1957 orde~--<
and the report of the Kothari Commission which was
accepted. If so read there can be no doubt that the govern-
ment never intended to retract from the principle that
G teachers acquiring the BT or BEd would be entitled to the
higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their
acquiring that qualification. The 1979 order was indeed ..(
superfluous. There was no need for any special sanction for
the grant of Master's grade to unadjusted JBT teachers
who had passed BA, BEd. That was already the position
._

-
'-

H when obtained both as a result of the 1957 and 1968 orders
( PUNJAB 1EACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SEN, J.] 1Q97

and the several judgments of the court. We do not think A
that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in
· departing from the rule in the judgment under appeal. The
rule had been well established and consistently acted upon.
Nor was it open to the government to act upon the principle
in some cases and depart from it in other cases."
B
The result therefore is that the writ petitions succeed and are
f allowed with costs. We direct the respondents to give to the petitioners
who are Teachers placed in Category B Group II, the higher scale of
-i pay admissible to Teachers in Category B Group I, they having
....,.. acquired the qualification of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc., with effect
from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualification. C

-(~.V.K. Petitions allowed.

f