STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.versusSEEMA SHARMA

798                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 798              [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A        STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
                      SECRETARY & ORS.
                                       v.
                              SEEMA SHARMA
B                       (Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2022)
                                 MAY 12, 2022
           [INDIRA BANERJEE AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
             Service Law – Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate
      Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 – Madhya Pradesh Public Health
C
      (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical
      and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 – Librarian-
      cum-Museum Assistant – UGC Scale of Pay – Respondent was
      appointed to the post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in the
      pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 – After completion
D     of 8 years of service, the respondent claimed the UGC scale of pay
      as paid to the persons in the senior scale of Librarian as per the
      1990 Rules – The request was rejected – Writ petition in the High
      Court – Single Judge allowed the petition and the respondent was
      directed to be paid the UGC scale of pay as paid to the librarians
      of colleges under the Higher Education Department – Intra-Court
E
      appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed – On appeal, held: The
      scale of pay of a Librarian is specified in Schedule 1 to the said
      1990 Rules but there is no designated post of Librarian cum Museum
      Assistant in the 1990 Rules – There is a post of Museum Assistant-
      cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules – In the instant case, it would
F     be pertinent to note that the eligibility criteria for appointment of
      Museum Assistant-cum- Librarian under the 1987 Rules was different
      from the eligibility criteria of appointment of Librarian under the
      1990 Rules – It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were not
      applicable to the respondent – Hence, the appeal is allowed and
      the impugned orders of the High Court are set-aside – Madhya
G
      Pradesh Ayush Department (Clerical and Non-Clerical), Class-III,
      Service Recruitment Rules, 2013.
            Service Law – Fixation of scales of pay – Interference of
      Courts – Held: The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy,
      with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where
H
                                      798
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY                      799
                  v. SEEMA SHARMA

there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by       A
the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria
is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect.
      Allowing the appeal, this Court
      HELD: 1. It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were not
applicable to the Respondent. The 1990 Rules have been annexed           B
to the Rejoinder filed by the appellants. The scale of pay of a
Librarian is specified in Schedule 1 to the said 1990 Rules. The
scale of pay of a Librarian, as specified in Schedule-I is Rs. 2200-
75-2800- 100-4000. Significantly, there is no designated post of
Librarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990 Rules. The                    C
appointment letter of the respondent clearly shows that she was
appointed Librarian cum Museum Assistant at a pay of Rs. 950
in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with
the prevailing dearness allowance from the date of joining. Even
after completion of probation, and for a period of more than 8
years, the respondent-writ petitioner did not raise any dispute          D
with regard to her scale of pay. Under the 1990 Rules, the senior
scale of Librarian is Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000. The
respondent-writ petitioner started claiming the aforesaid scale
of pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000/- after completion of 8 years
of service. [Paras 9-11][802-F-H; 803-A-B]                               E
      2. On the other hand, under the Madhya Pradesh Public
Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III,
Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987, the
scale of pay of the Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian, being the
post to which the respondent was appointed was Rs. 515-10-575-           F
15-800-20-840. That scale was revised. The Respondent-Writ
Petitioner was granted the revised pay scale. Significantly, as
observed above, there was no post of Museum Assistant-cum-
Librarian under the 1990 Rules, but there was a post of Museum
Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules. It appears that
the Division Bench as also the Single Bench of the High Court            G
followed the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
5438/2000 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. M.K. Verma &
four Ors.) heard with other writ petitions. The judgment in the
case of M.K. Verma pertained to librarians of Engineering Colleges
                                                                         H
800            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     and Medical Colleges and is not applicable in the facts and
      circumstances of the instant case. [Paras 12 & 13][803-C-E]
             3. In the instant case, it would be pertinent to note that the
      eligibility criteria for appointment of Museum Assistant-cum-
      Librarian under the 1987 Rules was different from the eligibility
B     criteria of appointment of Librarian under the 1990 Rules. Under
      the 1987 Rules, the minimum qualification for the post of Museum
      Assistant cum Librarian was graduate but under the 1990 Rules,
      the minimum qualification was post graduate degree. It is also
      well settled that there can be no equality to a wrong and/or
      illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneously
C     granted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim
      the UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules. The fixation
      of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can
      only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination
      between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority,
D     in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and
      the duties are identical in every aspect. [Paras 19, 20 & 23][805-
      D-E; 806-A-B]
            State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra
            Bajpai reported in (2009) 13 SCC 635 : [2009] 12 SCR
E           23 – relied on.
            State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti & Others
            (C.A.No.2661 of 2015 decided by the Supreme Court);
            State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Anadolan
            reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 –
F           referred to.
            State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. M.K. Verma & four
            Ors. (W.P.(C)No. 5438 of 2000) – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
      [2009] 12 SCR 23                  relied on         Para 15
G
      [2011] 6 SCR 443                  referred to       Para 25
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3892
      of 2022.

H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY                         801
                  v. SEEMA SHARMA

     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2016 of the High Court         A
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.A. No. 301 of 2016.
     Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sunny Choudhary,
Aakash Nandolia, Advs. for the Appellants.
       N. K. Mody, Subash Samvatsar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Ashima Gupta,
Prabudha Singh, Pareek, Praveen Swarup, Nitin S. Tambwekar,                 B
Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Sumeet Samnatsar, Kaustubh Fadnis, Advs.
for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      INDIRA BANERJEE, J.                                                   C
      Leave granted.
       This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 10.08.2016
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
(Indore Bench) dismissing Writ Appeal No. 301/2016 and upholding the
order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Single Bench allowing Writ Petition    D
No. 14027/2010 filed by the respondent and directing the Appellants to
grant the Respondent-Writ Petitioner the benefit of the University Grants
Commission scale of pay from the date of her initial appointment.
       2. By an order No./EXT/91 Order No.480 dated 27.03.1991, the
Respondent was appointed to the post of Librarian-cum-Museum                E
Assistant, Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, in the pay
scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with prevailing dearness
allowance from the date of joining. The basic pay of the Respondent-
Writ Petitioner was fixed at Rs.950/-.
       3. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner was appointed on probation         F
for a period of one year. The respondent successfully completed her
probation and was duly confirmed in service.
       4. After completion of 8 years of service, the Respondent-Writ
Petitioner claimed the UGC scale of pay as paid to the persons in the
senior scale of Librarian in colleges under the Higher Education            G
Department, as per the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate
Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the “1990
Rules”).
     5. The request of the Respondent-Writ Petitioners for the higher
UGC scale of pay was not acceded to. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner,        H
802             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     therefore, filed the Writ Petition referred to above, which has been allowed
      and the Respondent-Writ Petitioner has been directed to be paid the
      UGC scale of pay as paid to the Librarians of colleges under the Higher
      Education Department. An intra court appeal filed by the Appellants has
      been dismissed.
B            6. In the High Court as also this Court, the Respondent-Writ
      Petitioner contended that her service conditions were governed by the
      1990 Rules. The Appellants contend that the 1990 Rules were never
      applicable to the Respondent. The 1990 Rules were applicable to
      institutions under the Higher Education Department. The Government
      Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, where the Respondent-Writ Petitioner
C     was appointed was not under the Higher Education Department, but
      under the Ayush Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
            7. The Appellants pointed out that at the time of appointment, the
      Respondent-Writ Petitioner was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public
      Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical
D     and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 and not the 1990
      Rules. The Appellants have made a specific averment that the State
      Government has made the UGC scales applicable to Colleges under the
      Higher Education Department, which are receiving financial aid from
      the UGC.
E           8. It is the specific contention of the Appellants that the Ayurvedic
      Colleges under the Ayush Department do not receive any financial aid
      from the UGC. The Rules applicable to institutions under the Ayush
      Department do not contain any provision that makes the UGC scale of
      pay applicable to the employees of institutions under the Ayush
F     Department.
             9. It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were not applicable to
      the Respondent. The 1990 Rules have been annexed to the Rejoinder
      filed by the appellants. The scale of pay of a Librarian is specified in
      Schedule 1 to the said 1990 Rules. The scale of pay of a Librarian, as
G     specified in Schedule-I is Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. Significantly, there
      is no designated post of Librarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990
      Rules.
             10. The appointment letter of the respondent clearly shows that
      she was appointed Librarian cum Museum Assistant at a pay of Rs. 950
      in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with the
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY                             803
          v. SEEMA SHARMA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

prevailing dearness allowance from the date of joining. Even after              A
completion of probation, and for a period of more than 8 years, the
respondent-writ petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to her
scale of pay.
      11. Under the 1990 Rules, the senior scale of Librarian is Rs.
3000-100-3500-125-5000. The respondent-writ petitioner started claiming         B
the aforesaid scale of pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000/- after
completion of 8 years of service.
       12. On the other hand, under the Madhya Pradesh Public Health
(Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical and
Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987, the scale of pay of the          C
Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian, being the post to which the respondent
was appointed was Rs. 515-10-575-15-800-20-840. That scale was
revised. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner was granted the revised pay
scale. Significantly, as observed above, there was no post of Museum
Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1990 Rules, but there was a post of
Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules.                            D

       13. It appears that the Division Bench as also the Single Bench of
the High Court followed the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition
No. 5438/2000 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. M.K. Verma &
four Ors.) heard with other writ petitions. The judgment in the case of
M.K. Verma (supra) pertained to librarians of Engineering Colleges and          E
Medical Colleges and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the instant case.
       14. Significantly, in M.K. Verma (supra), the Court found that
there had been complete parity in the pay scale applicable to the librarians
working in Medical/Engineering Colleges till 30.06.1969. Thereafter, the        F
UGC pay scales, accepted by the State Government were made
applicable to librarians working in general/higher education colleges.
       15. Be that as it may, the issues involved in this appeal are squarely
covered by the judgment dated 28.07.2009 of this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 5058/2009 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25682/           G
2008, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai
reported in (2009) 13 SCC 635 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.25682/2008, where the Respondent, a Physical Training
Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College had been claiming the UGC
pay scale.
                                                                                H
804            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A             16. This Court took note of the submission of the learned counsel
      for the State of Madhya Pradesh that the University Grants Commission
      scales of pay had not been extended to the employees of the Ayurvedic
      Colleges including the members of Teaching staff, governed by the 1987
      Rules.
B          17. The relevant findings of this Court are set out hereinbelow for
      convenience :-
            “9. It is not in dispute that Ayurvedic Colleges situated in the
            State of Madhya Pradesh are under the control of the
            Department of Medical Education. It is also not in dispute
C           that at present recruitment to the post of Physical Training
            Instructor is regarded by the 1987 Rules. In terms of rules 5,
            6 and 8 read with the relevant entries of Schedules I, II and
            III of the 1987 Rules, the post of Physical Training Instructor
            is categorized as Class II Non-Ministerial under the heading
            ‘Establishment of Divisional Organization’ and the same is
D           required to be lifted 100 per cent by direct recruitment from
            amongst the persons possessing the requisite educational
            qualification of Diploma in Physical Training.
                  The post of Sports Officer finds mention in the four
            Schedules appended to the 1990 Rules. By virtue of Rule 8
E           read with the relevant entries of Schedule II and III of the
            1990 Rules, the post of Sports Officer is required to be filled
            as under :-
                 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from
            amongst the Assistant Sports Officers.
F
            10. The educational qualification prescribed for direct
            recruitment to the post of Sports Officer is a Post Graduate
            Degree in physical education with at least 55% marks and at
            the degree level of physical education, the percentage of total
            marks obtained should not be less than 50.
G
            11. A comparison of the provisions of the 1987 Rules and
            1990 Rules clearly establish that they not only deal with
            different classes of employees but the educational
            qualifications and scales of pay prescribed for the posts
            enumerated in Schedules of two sets of Rules are entirely
H           different. While the 1987 Rules regulate recruitment to Class
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY                                  805
          v. SEEMA SHARMA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial posts in various colleges                 A
       imparting education in India System of Medicine including
       Ayurvedic the 1990 rules regulate recruitment to different posts
       in the Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) including that
       of Sports Officer.”
       18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this Court further held                 B
that it was well-settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced
in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of
work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The
Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of
recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of           C
work, responsibilities involved and various other factors.
       19. In the instant case, it would be pertinent to note that the eligibility
criteria for appointment of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the
1987 Rules was different from the eligibility criteria of appointment of
Librarian under the 1990 Rules. Under the 1987 Rules, the minimum                    D
qualification for the post of Museum Assistant cum Librarian was
graduate but under the 1990 Rules, the minimum qualification was post
graduate degree.
      20. It is also well settled that there can be no equality to a wrong
and/or illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneously                E
granted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim the
UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules.
       21. On behalf of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner, it was forcefully
contended that the Respondent-Writ Petitioner had wrongly been granted
scale of pay as per the Madhya Pradesh Ayush Department (Clerical                    F
and Non-Clerical), Class-III, Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, which
came into force in 2013 could have no manner of application to the
respondents, who became eligible for the Senior Scale in terms of the
1990 Rules. It was urged that specific Rules for the employees of the
Ayush Department were framed only in 2013 and such Rules could not                   G
retrospectively be applied. However, from the recital of the Rules it is
patently clear that the Rules have been framed superseding the 1987
Rules.
      22. This makes it absolutely clear that at all material points of
time the employees of the Ayush Department, Government of Madhya
                                                                                     H
Pradesh were governed by a separate set of Rules.
806            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A           23. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which
      the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is
      discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same
      authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same
      and the duties are identical in every aspect.
B            24. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants to a recent judgment of
      this Court rendered on 07.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2661/2015 (State
      of Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Others), where this Court
      held as under :-

C           “14. A mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed
            as an “anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution”. When
            there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by
            taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court
            is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid
            and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one.
D           15. Such a discrimination would not be termed as arbitrary
            as the object of the classification itself is meant for providing
            the benefits to an identified group of persons who form a
            class of their own. When the differentiation is clearly
            distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified,
E           the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and
            economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters
            in classifying a particular group. Thus, a valid classification
            is nothing but a valid discrimination. That being the position,
            there can never be an injury to the concept of equality
            enshrined under the Constitution, not being an inflexible
F           doctrine.
            16. A larger latitude in dealing with a challenge to the
            classification is mandated on the part of the Court when
            introduced either by the Legislature or the Executive as the
            case may be. There is no way, courts could act like appellate
G           authorities especially when a classification is introduced by
            way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of
            beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials.
            17. The question as to whether a classification is reasonable
            or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable,
H           common man’s approach, keeping in mind the avowed object
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY                            807
          v. SEEMA SHARMA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as genus, a         A
       right to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When two
       identified groups are not equal, certainly they cannot be
       treated as a homogeneous group. A reasonable classification
       thus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined under
       Article 14 when there exists an intelligible diffrentia between
                                                                               B
       two groups having a rational relation to the object. Therefore,
       an interference would only be called for on the court being
       convinced that the classification causes inequality among
       similarly placed persons. The role of the court being
       restrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concerned
       authorities. When a classification is made on the                       C
       recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for
       the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering
       into the said arena as its interference would amount to
       substituting its views, a process which is best avoided.
       18. A long as the classification does not smack of inherent             D
       arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may
       not be any reason to interfere with it. It is the wisdom of the
       other wings which is required to be respected except when a
       classification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificial
       difference and itself being discriminatory. A decision made
       sans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either a             E
       suspicious or a microscopic eye. Good-faith and intention
       are to be presumed unless the contrary exists. One has to
       keep in mind that the role of the court is on the illegality
       involved as against the governance.”
      25. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by        F
the Government merely because it feels that another decision would
have been fairer; or wiser as held by this Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Anadolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639
and relied upon and re-affirmed in Sudhir Budakoti & Others (supra).
     26. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal is allowed. The           G
impugned orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh are set-aside.
       27. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)
                                                                               H