STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus SUDHIR BUDAKOTI

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 07-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
v.
SUDHIR BUDAKOTI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2661 of 2015)
APRIL 07, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.14: Classification test – The
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development
published communications on revision of pay scale of the Lecturers
on one side and the Administrative Staff starting from the Registrar
on the other – The State of Uttarakhand applied the directions issued
by the Central Government  on revised salary to its teaching faculty
alone, and not to the registrar – Allegation of discrimination – High
Court held that the pay scale was meant to be applied to registrar
and the faculty both – On appeal, held: Appellant is not bound by
any direction issued by the Central Government which would at
worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central
Government Colleges receiving funds – Thus, any such decision
would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and
Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation – High
Court misconstrued the facts – Appellant nowhere made a decision
to accept and adopt the circular of the Central Government
pertaining to the Registrars working in the Universities coming under
its purview – In absence of any legal right with the corresponding
duty, such a relief can never be asked for, particularly when there
are clear and specific rules provided for the pay scale of Registrars
by the appellant – When the classification is distinct and clear having
adequate rationale with due relation to the objective, there is no
reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the
Lecturers – One is meant for administration and the other teaching
– Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 – Universities.
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: s.17(1) –
Appointment – Whether State Universities bound by directions issued
by Central Government – Held: Appellant not bound by any direction
issued by the Central Government which would at worst be
mandatory to the Central Universities, and Colleges receiving funds
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 913
913
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
by the Central Government. Such directions would be directory to
State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of
a mere recommendation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A mere differential treatment on its own cannot
be termed as an “anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution”.
When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by
taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is
not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and
pedantic view as against a pragmatic one. [Para 14][920-A-B]
1.2 When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with
adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets
satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are
certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group.
Thus, a valid classification is nothing but a valid discrimination.
That being the position, there can never be an injury to the concept
of equality enshrined under the Constitution, not being an
inflexible doctrine. [Para 15][920-B-D]
1.3 The question as to whether a classification is reasonable
or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable,
common man’s approach, keeping in mind the avowed object
behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as a genus, a
right to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When two identified
groups are not equal, certainly they cannot be treated as a
homogeneous group. A reasonable classification thus certainly
would not injure the equality enshrined under Article 14 when
there exists an intelligible differentia between two groups having
a rational relation to the object. Therefore, an interference would
only be called for on the court being convinced that the
classification causes inequality among similarly placed persons.
The role of the court being restrictive, generally, the task is best
left to the concerned authorities. When a classification is made
on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted
for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into
the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting
its views, a process which is best avoided. [Para 17][920-E-H;
921-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
1.4  As long as the classification does not smack of inherent
arbitrariness and co

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