STATE OF PUNJAB versus JOGINDER SINGH

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 16-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
STATE OF PUN.JAB 
v. 
JOGINDER SINGH 
169 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. WANCRoo, 
J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYA?\'GAR, JJ.) 
Equality of Opportunity-Puhlic Employment-State Cadre 
of teachera-Provincia!ised cadr. formed of DistricJ 
Board 
teachers-Equal pay srales and allowances-Difference in oppor-
tunity of promotion-I/ discriminatory-Power of Government 
to constitute parallel services-Punjab Educational Service 
(Provincialised Cadre) Cta..s Ill Rules, 1961, rr. 2, .1-Constitu-
tion of India, Arl8. 14, 16. 
Of the •junior teachers' in the Punjab State cadre 15% 
were put in the "middle scale" and 85% in the "lower scale". 
From Qctoher 1, 1957, the junior teachers in the District Board 
and Municipal Board schools were made Government employees 
and formed into a "Provincialised Cadre". They were divided 
into Hmiddle scale" and "lower scale" in the same proportion 
and were given the same scales of pay as th,. teachers in the two 
scales in the «State Cadre". The Government decided to keep 
the two cadres distinct and made the Punjab Educational 
Service (Piovincialised C'!dre) Class III Rule;, 1961, which 
laid down the manner in which promotions in the two cadres 
from the lciwer to the middle grades were to be made. These 
Rules were made effective from October I, 1957. These Rules 
made the Provincialised Cadre a diminishing class by providing 
that no further recruitment would be made to it and that all 
vacancies occuring therein would be transferred to the State 
Cadre. The result was that those recruited to the State Cadre 
had a progressively larger chance of getting into the selection 
grade of that cadre than the corresponding member of the 
Provincialised Cadre. 
1~hc respondent, a lower scale teacher 
of the Provincialised Cadre, contended thttt there was a com-
plete integration of all the junior teachers, that the Rules 
violated Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution as they dis-
criminated between the two cadres in respect of the opportunity 
of promotion to the middle scale and that the State could not 
consistently with Art. 14, constitute two parallel services con-
sisting of employees doing the same work but subject to differ-
ent conditions of service. 
Held, (per Sinha C. J., Wanchoo and Ayyangar, .JJ., Subba 
Rao, and Shah, lJ., disseming) ihat the Rules did not violate 
Art. 14 or Art .. 16. The two Services started as jndependen t 
1962 
Novmoln, 16, 
1962 
S11111 of l'vf!i•b 
·•· 
lopd.r Silfth 
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP: 
services and the Government never integrated them into one 
service. 
They started dissimilarly and they continued dis-
similarly and the dissimilarity in their treatmeni by the Rules 
was not a denial of equal opportunity. The two distinct cadres 
existed independently of the Rules. The question of denial 
of equal opportunity could ari•e only as between members of 
the same class. Further, it was open to the Government to 
constitute two distinct services of employees doing the same 
work but subject to different conditions of service. The assump-
tion that equal work must -receive equal pay was not correct. 
Nor was it correct to say that if there was equality in pay and 
work there must be equality in conditions of service. 
Kisliori Mohanla7 v. Unirm, A. I. R. (1962) S. C. 1139, 
relied on. 
Per Subba Rao, and Shah, JJ.-The Rules in so far as 
they provide for differential treatment between the members of 
the State Cadre and the Provincialised Cadre in the matter of 
promotion are invalid. Though there were two Cadres they 
were differentiated only for purposes of future promotions. There 
was no valid basis for classification so as to justify a differential 
treatment between their members inter "' for the purposes of 
promotion. The Government in fart having given the same 
terms of employment to the two Cadres and having in cll"ect 
constituted a . single grade of teachers, the disrrimination bet· 
ween the members of that grade based merely on the source of 
recruitment cli:arly infringed Art. 16(1) and (2). 
General Manager So!llMrn Rly. v, Rangachari, [1962] 
2 S.C.R. 586. All India Station Maater•' And A .. istant Station 
Masters' A38ociation v. General Manager, C.R. [1962] 2 S.C.R. 
311 and Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v. Uuion of India, A. I. R. 
(1962) S. C. 1139, referred to. 
CmL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 388 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated 

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