STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus BIHAR STATE+ 2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·-
,,... 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
BIHAR STATE+ 2 LECTURERS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERANDTARUNCHATIERJEE,JJ.] 
B 
... 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 136 & 142-Appointment of 
.. 
untrained lecturers in schools-State fixing higher pay scales for trained 
> 
lecturers and lower pay scales for untrained lecturers as per recommendation c 
by Fitment Committee-Writ Petition by untrained lecturers before High 
Court challenging the classification on the basis of training-Fitment 
Appellate Committee recommending uniform pay scales-High Court allowing 
the Writ Petition-Correctness of-Held, classification based on training 
does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution-However, on/acts, in exercise 
of discretionary jurisdiction, uniform pay scales granted. 
D 
~ 
Members of respondent-Association, who were qualified Post Graduate 
but untrained, were appointed by appellants as lecturers in schools pursuant 
r 
to an advertisement at a particular pay-scale. A Fitment Committee appointed 
by the State recommended different pay scales for trained and unstrained 
lecturers, which was accepted by the State. The respondents filed a Writ E 
Petition before High Court challenging the classification on the basis of 
training. A Fitment Appellate Committee constituted to go into the anomalies 
in the pay stales, submitted its report recommending payment of uniform pay 
scales to trained and unstrained lecturers. The State, however, maintained 
before the High Court that there is difference between trained and untrained F 
-
lecturers and the difference in pay scales would not violate Article 14 of the 
y 
Constitution. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. In 
T 
appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the State to grant uniform 
pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-State contended that trained and G 
untrained lecturers from different class and such classification is rational 
and reasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution; that fixation of different 
-~-
pay scales cannot be said io be arbitrary or irrational; that the decision of the 
Fitment Appellate Committee to grant uniform pay scales was not in 
631 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A consonance with law; that non-mention of the pay scales in the advertisement 
cannot be a ground.to grant uniform pay scales to all the lecturers. 
The respondent-Association contended that the classification based on 
training is totally artificial, irrational and arbitrary; that the State expressly 
B 
stated that it will accept the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate 
Committee; that when the Committee recommended uniform pay scales, it is 
not open for the State not to accept the Committee's recommendations; that 
untrained teachers were performing similar functions; that after the report 
of the Appellate Committee, the State withdraw the order sending untrained 
lecturers for taking training and proceeded on the footing that there is no 
c distinction between trained and untrained lecturers. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia guarantees equality 
before the law and confers equal protection oflaws. It prohibits the State from 
D denying persons or class of persons equal treatment, provided they are equals 
and are similarly situated. It, however, does not forbid classification. In other 
words, what Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classificati.1n if 
otherwise such classification is legal, valid and reasonable. A legal and valid 
classification may be based on educational qualifications. 
E 
[Paras 11 and 17] [637-C-D[ 
1.2. Training is one of the most important factors for determining pay 
scales. A distinction between trained and untrained lecturers for the purpose 
of prescribing pay scales is valid and reasonable. Importance of training cannot 
be ignored or under-estimated. [Para 25] [641-GI 
F 
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] SCR 284 (CB); 
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [20061 8 
SCC 399 (CB); Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2007) l SCC 
732; State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Tri/oki Nath Khos/a & Ors., [1974) 1 SCC 
19; Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521; 
G U.P. State Sugar Corporation & Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh, (2006] 9 SCC 82 and 
State of Orissa & Ors. v. Bairam Sahoo, [2000

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.