STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus THE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 18-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 650 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
v. 
THE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION 
&ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 632 of2008) 
AUGUST 18,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.j 
Service Law: 
Parity of Posts - Post of Vocational Masters - Initially 
educational qualification was either degree in Engineering or B.A. 
with ITJ Diploma - Their pay-scale was higher than that of the 
Lecturers - In the year 1978 Vocational Masters and Lecturers were 
0 
placed in the same scale - By Notification dated 31.3.1995 graduate 
Vocational Masters and post-graduate Vocational Masters were re-
designated, qs Vocational Lecturers - However; responsibilities and 
financial implications were not affected - Notification dated 
31.3.1995 was challenged in High Court - During pendency of the 
petition, Service Rules were amended - Thereby pay scales of 
E Lecturets were made higher than those of the Vocational Masters -
The Vocational Masters approached the State Government claiming 
pay-scales at par with the Lecturers - The State Government by 
Notifications dated 7.11.2002 and 16.5.2003 granted the benefit 
of higher pay-scale only to those, who were iti service prior to 
F 
8. 7.1995 - State Government by Notification dated 16. 7.2003, 
canceled the Notifications dated 7.11.2002 and 16.5.2003 clarifying 
that only those Voc,ational Masters who were appointed prior to 
8. 7.1995 and those who acquired the qualification of post-graduate 
and or degree in engineering by 8. 7.1995 would be eligible for 
higher pay-scale - Vocational Masters challenged the Notification 
G dated 16. 7. 2003 - Single Judge of High Cow·t quashed the 
Notification dated 16. 7.2003 and directed the State Government to 
give benefit of Notification dated 31.3.1995 - Division Bench of 
High Court dismissed the LPAs - On appeal, held: Since the very 
inception, the educational qualification for appointment as 
H 
Vocational Masters had been a degree or diploma as both the 
650 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
651 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION. 
qualifications were placed at par ..:. All were appointed by a common A 
process of selection and all we~e performing the same work .:... It 
was only"subsequently that the State Govern.ment designate_d some 
'of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about. 
an artificial distinction between the two - Even after re-designation, 
there was no change in the re~ponsibilities and financial matters of .a· 
the Vocational Lecturers - There is no distinction between Vocational 
Lecturers and Vocational Masters -:-Any attempt to curtail the salary 
and allowances of Vocational Masters.·would amount io 
arbitrariness, if no reasonable fustification is offered for the same 
- Therefore, High Court was justified in 'balding that VocationaF• 
Masters were entitled to higher pay-scale ~ Notification dated C 
16. 7.2003 is also liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of 
natural justice as it was passed without hearing the concerned 
employees - Constitution of India -Art. 14 - Punjab State Education 
Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. · 
Constitution of India: 
Arts. 14 to 18 - Nature and Scope of -.Held: Doctrine of 
equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions 
D 
- Art. 14forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable 
class;fication - Classification should be based on intelligible 
differentia and the diflerentia must have a reasonable nexus to o~ject E 
sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provisioi1 iri question 
- The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of 
any policy by the State ~s is evident from Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 
and 46 of the Constitution - If the State is giving some economic 
benefits to one class while denying the same to other, then the onus 
ofjustifying the same lies on the State, specially when both the 
classes were treated as same in the past by the State . 
. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is a cardinal principle of law that Government 
F 
has to abide by rule oflaw and uphold the values and principles of G 
the Constitution of India. The doctrine of eqµality is a' dynamic 
and evolving concept having many dimensions. Articles 14-1.8 of 
the Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and 
equal protection of the laws, also disallow discrimination which 
lacks tile -Object of achieving equality, in matters of employment. 
H 
652

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