STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. versus P. NARASING RAO

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 31-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
11. 
p, NARASING RAO 
August 31, 1967 
[K. N. 
WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. 
BACHAWAT, V. 
RAMASWAMJ, 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India Arts. 14, 16-Non-matriculate Government 
employee placed in lower pay scale-Matriculate employees doing 
similar work placed in higher scale-Whether discrimination-
Whether higher general education relevant consideration for fi:ring 
higher pa11 where technical qualifications are similar. 
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, s. 115(7)-Respondent in .!ingle 
cadre of matriculate and non-matriculate tracers in old Hyderabad 
State-Placed in separate cadre of non-matriculates in new Mysore 
State-Whether his conditions of service adversely affected. 
The respondent was employed as a Tracer in the Engineering 
Department in the erstwhile Hyderabad State where the cadre of 
Tracers consisted of both matriculates as well as non-matriculates 
and no distinction was made between them. As a result of the 
reorganisation of States in 1956 he was allotted to the appellant 
Mysore State where the cadre of Tracers was reorganised into two, 
<me consisting of matriculate Tracers in. a higher scale of pay and 
the other of non-matriculates in a lower scale. The respondent was 
giVen the option either to remain in his old Hyderabad scale of 
pay or to accept the. new scale applicable to non-matriculates. He 
refused to exercise the option and claimed that the cadre of Tracers 
should not have been divided into two grades and that no distinction 
should have been made between matriculates and non-matriculates. 
His claim was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on March 
19, 1958 and he filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that 
the order of the Superintending Engineer be quashed and for the 
issue of writ in the nature of mandamus to fix his pay in the scale 
P~':l'ibed for matriculate 
Tracers. The High Court allowed the 
pet1t!on, holding that there was no valid reason for making a dis-
~incbon as bot~ matriculate and non-matriculate Tracers were do-
mg the same kmd of w~rk and the distinction made was in violation 
of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
On appeal to this Court, 
Held: Allowing the. appeal. H:igher educational qualifications 
are relev!l"t conslderatrnns for fixmg a higher pay scale and the 
classil,icati?n of two grades of Tracers in tlie new Mysore State was 
not VIOiative of Arts. 14 or 16 of the Constitution. 
Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutiona~ code of 
guarant~ and supplement each other. 
In other words Art 16 Is 
r~i an m~tance of the ·~plication of the general rule of eciuality 
a . d?wn m Art. 14 and it should be construed as such 
Hence 
there is 110 denial of equality of opportunity unless the 
r8on wh 
complains of discrimination is equally situated with thr person 0~ 
persons who are alleged to have been favoured. (411E-F] 
f.07 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968] 1 S.C.11. 
The provisions of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do not exclude the laying 
A 
do"n of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from 
laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifica-
tions need not be only technical andl it is open to the Government 
to consider the general educational attainments of the candidates 
and to give preference to candidates who have better educational 
qualifications besides the technical proficiency of a Tracer. [ 411G-
412B] 
B 
General Manager, Southern Railway 
v. 
Rangachari, [1962] 2 
S.C.R 586, 596, referred to. 
There was no force in the respondent's contention that because 
of his having been in one grade with matriculate Tracers in the old 
State an& on his being made to work in a separate no»-matriculate 
grade, in the new State his conditions of service were odversely 
affected in violation of s. 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act 
~ 
1956. Furthermore the basis of promotion was merit and seniority 
based on the inter-State seniority list prepared under the provisions 
. of. the Act; thus the respondent's seniority had not been affected 
and he was not deprived of any accrued benefits. [412F-G; 414C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1238 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order diited 
D 
January 15, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 
48 of 1962. 
R. Gopalakrishnan and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants. 
S. C. Mazumdar, M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatter;ee, for 
the respondent. 
The Judg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.