Mere differential treatment cannot be termed as 'anathema' of right to equality: Supreme Court

The high court took note of the amended petition of the Registrar and asked to consider enhancing the salary like the decision made in favour of teaching faculty.
Supreme Court (Photo | EPS)
Supreme Court (Photo | EPS)

NEW DELHI: Mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as “anathema” of the fundamental right to equality if reasonable classification and “intelligible differentia” between two groups are there, the Supreme Court Thursday said.

"There is no reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the Lecturers," the top court held while setting aside an order of the Uttarakhand High Court by which it had asked the state government to pay the enhanced salary to a Registrar of a state university at Kumaon by treating him alike with lecturers.

"A mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as ‘anathema' to Article 14 (right to equality) 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," said a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M Sundresh .

Justice Sundresh, writing the judgement, said a reasonable classification would not “injure the equality” enshrined under the constitution if there was an “intelligible differentia” between two groups having a rational relation to the object.

When the differentiation is clearly “distinguishable” with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied, it said, adding that “social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group. Thus, a valid classification is nothing but a valid discrimination."

"As long as the classification does not smack of inherent arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may not be any reason to interfere with it. It is the wisdom of the other wings which is required to be respected except when a classification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificial difference, and itself being discriminatory. A decision made sans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either a suspicious or a microscopic eye. Good faith and intention are to be presumed unless the contrary exists," it said.

The verdict, which dealt in detail with the constitutional right to equality, came on an appeal of the Uttarakhand government against a decision of the high court on a plea of Sudhir Budakoti who was appointed as the Registrar of the Kumaon University in 2009 in the state.

The central government, through University Grants Commission, had come out with two separate communications on the salary of lecturers and administrative staffers including Registrars respectively.

Initially, the high court asked the state to consider the plea of the Registrar seeking the pay scale meant to be applied to his counterparts in the Central Universities.

Later, the high court took note of the amended petition of the Registrar and asked to consider enhancing the salary like the decision made in favour of teaching faculty.

The apex court found force in the submission of the state that there were two circulars dealing with the lecturers and the registrars and a decision was made to revise the pay scales of the UGC for the lecturers and not for the registrars.

"Law has become quite settled that the Appellant (state) 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," the verdict said.

The High Court of Uttarakhand has “completely misconstrued the facts” as the state government has not 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.

"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 for teaching. The High Court has also not considered the financial implications as any decision would not rest with Respondent No.1 alone, but the entirety of the administrative staff," it said.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com