K.S. MAHALINGEGOWDA AND ORS. ETC versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 15-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, N.P. SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
K.S. MAHALINGEGOWDA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, 
DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 15, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW-Vocational Education Scheme-Appointment ofpart-
time vocational teachers during the period from 1977-78-Claim to be 
regularised and be paid same salary as being paid to non-vocational 
teachers-Principle of 'equal pay for equal work'-Whether applicable-
Held, No-Claim made liable to be rejected-However, State Government 
agreed to absorb on regular basis all part time lecturers working for more 
than ten years-Part time lecturers holding regular employment in other 
educational institutions-Held not entitled to regularisation under . this 
scheme. 
In pursuance of the priorities accorded in the National Policy on 
Education (1986), a centrally sponsored scheme of vocationalisation of 
secondary education was started by the Government of India w.e.f. 
February, 1988. Vocational training, under the scheme, is offered to 
those who have passed 10th standard, are not interested in pursuing 
higher education in the educational structure at 10+2+3 or professional 
courses and also interested in seeking avocation immediately. 
The Government of Karnataka accepted the scheme and 
implemented the same from 1977-78 onwards. There are full time 
teachers as well as part-time teachers working under the scheme. The 
appellants are all part-time vocational teachers appointed under the 
scheme at different times during the period from 1977-78 onwards. 
They filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court seeking 
directions to the State to regularise them in service as lecturers in the 
pay scales and with the conditions of service as are being given to the 
non-vocational teaching staff in the State of Karnataka. The writ 
petitions were dismissed. These appeals by special leave are filed 
against the judgment of the High Court. 
The appellants submitted that they are performing the same duties 
and are teaching equal number of units as are being done by the non-
476 
K.S. MAHALINGEGOWDA v. SECRETARY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 
477 
vocational teachers in their respective institutions. It is claimed that the A 
appellants are entitled to be regularised and be paid the same salary as 
is being given to the non-vocational teachers on the principle of 'equal 
pay for equal work.' it is further contended that the appellants have 
been working in part time capacity for a very long period and some of 
them have served for more than ten years. According to the appellants 
the action of the State Government in utilising their services for a long B 
period without appointing them on regular basis is wholly arbitrary 
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia. 
The State of Karnataka contended that the appellants, having been 
employed under the scheme, are a class apart and are not entitled to 
claim parity with the non-vocational teachers in their respective C 
institutions. It is stated that the scheme regarding vocationalisation of 
education was adopted by the State with a specific objective and the 
employment was offered to the appellants under the scheme, keeping in 
view the peculiar features. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1.1. The claim of the appellants, to be regularised as 
teachers and be paid the same salary as is being paid to the non-
vocational teachers - based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal 
work' - is wholly misconceived. It is entirely within the domain of the 
State Government to take a policy decision and frame any scheme for · E 
the benefit of the people of the State. The vocational scheme is one of 
such schemes. Duration of the scheme, the financial involvement, type 
of vocational training and various other aspects must have been taken 
into consideration by the State Government while providing the 
mechanism to implement the scheme. When the scheme has been made 
to operate with the help of the part-time teaching staff it is not for this F 
Court, ordinarily, to modify the scheme and direct the State 
Government to employ whole time staff to implement the scheme. Even 
otherwise there is no parity on facts between the vocational teachers 
under the scheme and other teaching staff in an educational institution. 
Vocational teaching is not a part of regular teaching in the institutions G 
where the appellants are working. The method of teaching, the extent 
of resp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.