-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Writ Petition No.942 of l992 Prof Malini Johri ...Petitioner vs State of Mah and ors... ..Respondents Mr G.K.Masand for petitioner Mr.R.J Mane AGP for respondent. nos.l and 2 Mr.R Rodrigues for respondent no.3 CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. Dated 28.l.2005 Dated 28.l.2005 Dated 28.l.2005 P.C: l. The petitioner is a Master of Arts, Master of Philosophy and holds Bachelors Degree in Education and has been working as a full time teacher at Shri Chenai College of Commerce and Economics with effect from 20.6.l980. By this petition the petitioner is seeking to challenge the decision of the 2nd respondent not to allow grant with regard to increments to the petitioner for the period from l988 to l990. 2. The petitioner has obtained Post Graduate Degree in Arts with 57.5% marks in l970 from Delhi University and M.Phil in February l990 from the Bombay University. -2- 3. It appears that increments of the petitioner were stopped by the college authority in June l988 as she had not acquired the qualification of M.Phil. Subsequently pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 27.2.l989 a Placement Committee was constituted under clause l2 of the said Government Resolution and after due deliberations the Committee recommended to place the petitioner in the scale of Rs.3000-5000 which was a senior scale and also recommended to restore the increments which had been stopped from lst June l988 on the ground that the petitioner had not acquired the M.Phil degree at the relevant time. Consequent upon the recommendations of the Committee the petitioner was granted revised payscale and she was drawing basic pay of Rs.3400 as on 3lst December l99l. However, thereafter pursuant to the directions given by the 2nd respondent petitioner’s basic pay was reduced by two stages with effect from January l992 and she was also asked to refund Rs.9,399 on account of alleged over payment for the period l988-89 to l99l-92. The 2nd respondent took a view that while fixing petitioner’s salary in revised pay scale the authorities through oversight ignored the aspect of stoppage of increment for 2 years and that the -3- petitioner was paid two extra increments which were not due to her. 4. We have heard Mr.Masand appearing for the petitioner,Mr. R.J.Mane, learned AGP for respondent nos.l and 2 and Mr.Rodrigues for respondent no. 3 University of Bombay. We have also gone through the relevant government resolutions with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. It appears that the Government of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution No.USG ll75/l04287 dated 4.l0.l975 for the first time prescribed that a college teacher must have a post graduate qualification in Philosophy and if he does not acquire the same either prior to his employment or during his employment,his increments would be stopped and he may even be required to be replaced. This resolution was challenged by the teachers association by filing a writ petition in this court and the said resolution was stayed. The Government of Maharashtra thereafter issued Government Resolution No USG ll77/l29387/XXXIII (Cell) dated 25.l0.l977 in supersesion of Government Resolution dated 4.l0.l975 and the new Government Resolution -4- provided that the college teachers recruited on or after 4.l0.l975 will be required to obtain the post graduate qualification i.e. M.Phil within a period of 5 years from the date of the G.R. dated 25.l0.l977 and if they are unable to do so they shall not be allowed to earn any further increment till they satisfy that condition. By a further Government Resolution dated 30.9.l982 bearing No. USG ll80/l5l65l (289)/UNI-4, the period for acquiring the M.Phil degree was increased to 8 years from 5 years. By Government Resolution No. USG/ll80/l5l55l/ (289)/UNI 4 dated 3l.l.l983 the Government clarified that the period of 8 years ought to have been reckoned from the date of the said G.R. 6. By Government Resolution No NGC l286/(l224)/UNI-4 dated 28.2.l989 the Government of Maharashtra revised the payscale of college teachers as per the recommendation of University Grant Commission as approved by the Government of India with effect from l.l.l986. By this Government Resolution the State Government waived the requirement of compulsory acquiring of a M Phil in respect of teachers having obtained more than 55% marks at post graduate level. The decision to -5- waive the requirement of acquiring M.Phil decree was further clarified by a subsequent Government Resolution No. l289/(l605)/UNI-4 dated l5.l2.l989 and in para l(i) it is laid down as under: "Teachers appointed between l.l.l986 and 27.2.l989 having more 55% marks in the relevant subject at post graduate level, but without M.Phil would be continued in those appointments, without insisting on acquiring M.Phil as that condition has now been waived". 7. Mr. Masand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by Government Resolution dated l5.l2.l989 the Government while waiving the condition of acquiring M.Phil qualification has discriminated between the teachers in that the teachers appointed between l.l.l986 and 27.2.l989 having more 55% marks in relevant subject at post graduate level are granted benefit of waiver of post graduate degree in M.Phil whereas there was no such waiver as was granted in respect of those appointed prior to l.l.l986. He contended that by the said G.R. dated l5.l2.l989 the State Government has discriminated between the college -6- teachers who are otherwise similarly placed. According to him the benefit of waiver ought to have been given to teachers appointed prior to l.l.l986 who have secured more than 55% marks. 8. We find considerable substance in the submission of Mr.Masand. The artificial division made by the Government Resolution dated l5.l2.l989 stares in the face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle,if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the said Government Resolution dated l5.l2.l989. The effect of this Government Resolution of l5.l2.l989 is that whereas teachers with 55% and above marks in relevant subject who were recruited between l.l.l986 and 27.2.l989 would not be required to acquire qualification in M.Phil, but those appointed prior to l.l.l986 like the petitioner are required to obtain this qualification though both groups were similarly placed as on the date of the Government Resolution dated 27.2.l989. The equal treatment guaranteed under Art l4 is clearly violated inasmuch as the Government Resolutions accords differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of waiver of condition of passing M.Phil examination. -7- We do not see any justification for such unequal treatement meted out to the petitioner and others who are similarly placed. Therefore prayer of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the action of the 2nd respondent is liable to be accepted. By an interim order dated 29.6.l992 the reliefs have been granted to the petitioner in terms of prayer clauses (g) and (h). We make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (d),(e) and (f).