Case: State of Punjab &amp; Others Vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association &amp; Others

a) The Senior Vocational Staff Mastersrespondent Association represents the Vocational Masters in the State of Punjab appointed during the years 1975, 1982, 1983 and thereafter. The respondents were appointed on their respective posts by the State of Punjab in the year 1975 onbasis. In the year 1978, the Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 132 posts of Vocational Masters to be filled up by way of regular appointment. These posts were to be filled up under the Punjab School Education (PSE) Class III (School Cadre) Rules. The minimum educational qualification for the posts of Vocational Masters was degree or post graduation except very few courses where the educational qualification was Diploma under the advertisement.(b) In the yearthe State Government decided to revise the minimum qualification for being appointed as vocational masters and Diploma was provided as the minimum educational qualification in place of Degree for some courses. Due to revision, there were two classes of Vocational Masters in the State, viz., Diploma holder vocational masters and degree holder vocational masters orvocational masters. The State Government, taking note of the fact that the unequals are being treated as equals due to the revision in qualification, vide Notification dated 31.03.1995,degree holder vocational masters andvocational masters as vocational lecturers with the rider that their present responsibilities and financial matters will have no change. It is also pertinent to mention here that Diploma holder vocational masters were also provided an opportunity toas vocational lecturers as and when they acquire the degree orqualification.(c) The said notification dated 31.03.1995 was challenged before the High Court in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 by the remaining Vocational Masters for a direction to the appellants to grant the designation of Vocational Lecturers to all the Vocational Masters in the State of Punjab. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government made rules to amend the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 prescribing separate qualification for vocational masters and vocational lecturers.(d) On the onset of 4th Punjab Pay Commission, the Commission had not treated Vocational Masters separate from Masters of General Studies and the Vocational Lecturers from the Lecturers of General Studies and merged the Vocational Masters with that of the School Masters and Vocational Lecturers with School Lecturers by amendment, viz., Punjab Civil Services (revised pay)(first amendment) Rules, 1998 wherein School Lecturers were granted the pay scale of Rs.and School Masters were given the pay scale of Rs.It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the Vocational Masters and Vocational Lecturers were given the same pay scales.(e) The respondents herein, being aggrieved by the disparity in pay scales granted by the 4th Pay Commission, approached the State Government claiming that they should be granted pay scales at par with the Lecturers. Vide Notification dated 07.11.2002, the Government of Punjab, Department of Education clarified that "the Vocational Masters appointed on or after 08.07.1995 neither can be designated as Vocational Lecturers based upon the educational qualification nor the revised scale of Rs.in place of Rs.be granted to them with effect from 01.01.1996. In other words, the benefit of higher scale will be admissible to those who were in service prior to 08.07.1995". Vide a subsequent notification dated 16.05.2003, the State Government reiterated the stand taken in the Notification dated 07.11.2002 and also sought for strict compliance of the same.(f) The Government of Punjab, Department of Education, vide Notification dated 16.07.2003, cancelled the Notifications dated 07.11.2002 and 16.05.2003 clarifying the position that only those Vocational Masters who were appointed prior to 08.07.1995 and those who acquired the qualification ofor degree in engineering by 08.07.1995 would be eligible for scale of pay of Rs.with effect from 01.01.1996 and also issued a direction to recover the excess amount being paid to any ineligible vocational master on the basis of the earlier Notifications.(g) Being aggrieved by the Notification dated 16.07.2003, the respondents herein preferred CWP No. 10928 of 2003 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide a common judgment and order dated 27.04.2005 in CWP Nos. 10928 of 2003 and 7527 of 1995, quashed the Notification dated 16.07.2003 and directed the State Government to give the benefit of Notification dated 31.03.1995 to all the Vocational Masters recruited prior to 08.07.1995.(h) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2005, the State Government preferred L.P.A. No. 66 of 2006 in CWP No. 10928 of 2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of 2006 in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein.(i) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2006, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

Reasoning:
In the present case, the State Government, in the year 1975, felt the need of Vocational courses and accordingly made the suitable provisions for the regulation of these courses. As per the government orders, initially, except very few subjects, the minimum educational qualification for the appointment to the post of "Vocational Masters" was Degree or Post Graduation.It is evident that at the time of initial appointment, both the degree holders and the Diploma holders were appointed by a common process of selection where for the engineering trade a degree was required and for thetrade a diploma was considered as the appropriate qualification. A common advertisement was issued and a common process of selection led to the appointment of all persons who were designated as Vocational Masters. They were appointed on a pay scale higher than the general lecturers. They continued to draw a higher scale till the year 1978 when the pay scale of the general lecturers was brought at par with the pay scale of the Vocational Masters. It is only in the year 1995 that an effort was made by the State Government to create a distinction between the degree holders as vocational lecturers and diploma holders as vocational masters.16. Further, since the very inception, the educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been a degree or a diploma with three years experience as both the qualifications were placed at par. All persons were appointed by a common process of selection and they teach the same classes, performing the same work. No distinction can be brought about between the persons so appointed. It is only subsequently that the appellants designated some of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about an artificial distinction between the two. Even on account ofof the degree holders and post graduates as vocational lecturers, there was no change in the responsibilities and the financial matters as between the degree holders and diploma holders before the alleged Notification which fact is duly admitted by the State. There is no distinction between the vocational lecturers and vocational masters and they form one unified cadre and class. There cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment in the Rules. As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that the vocational masters are discharging their duty in the Senior Secondary Schools in thetrades and have the technical qualifications while the vocational lecturers are also discharging the same duties in the same schools. Both vocational masters and lecturers are teaching the same classes, i.e., 10+1 and 10+2 and hence the nature of work, responsibilities and duties being identical and the pay scales were also kept identical since 1978 onwards.We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned senior counsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.Conclusion:19. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was fully justified in declaring that the vocational masters are entitled to pay scale of Rs.on the ground that the nature of duties being discharged by the vocational masters are the same as vocational lecturers and that there was no rationale behind making a classification between the two especially when both the categories were treated as one and the same in all the previous pay revisions since 1978 onwards. Vide notification dated 31.03.1995, only the nomenclature of vocational masters was changed without changing their nature of duties and pay scales. Further, the impugned order dated 16.07.2003 deserves to be quashed on the short ground that it has been passed without complying the rules of natural justice. The same could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees.The order dated 16.07.2003 came to be made behind the back of vocational masters without following any procedure known to law. Thus, there has been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the respondents had been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.