{"id":267295,"date":"2007-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-26T04:26:14","modified_gmt":"2019-01-25T22:56:14","slug":"state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2519 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Bihar & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBihar State +2 Lecturers Associations & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. Thakker & Tarun Chatterjee\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.   2519          OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1397 of 2005)<\/p>\n
C.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThis appeal by special leave arises from the
\njudgment and order dated March 22, 2004 passed by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna
\nin Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 2004.  By the said
\norder, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the
\nAssociation of Untrained Lecturers and set aside the
\norder dated January 28, 2004 passed by a single Judge
\nof that Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7224 of
\n1999.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tTo appreciate the controversy raised in the
\npresent appeal, few relevant facts may be noted:\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tAdvertisement No. 1 of 1987 was issued by the
\nappellants, inviting applications for appointment of +2
\nLecturers in Secondary Schools in the pay scales of
\nRs.940-1660 in Government Schools as well as in
\nNationalized Schools.  The qualification prescribed in the
\nAdvertisement for the post was Post-Graduate Degree in
\nII Class.  There was no requirement of having training for
\nappointment to the said post.  In 1989, Members of the
\nRespondent-Association who had Post-Graduate Degree
\nin II Class but who were untrained, were selected and
\nappointed as Lecturers in Nationalized Schools in the pay
\nscales of Rs.940-1660.  After Vth Pay Commission, pay
\nscales of Rs.940-1660 were revised to Rs.1640-2900 with
\neffect from January 1, 1996.  It appears that initially,
\nthere was difference in pay scales of +2 Lecturers serving
\nin Government Schools and serving in Nationalized
\nSchools other than Government Schools.  After a decision
\nof the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2445
\nof 1994, all +2 Lecturers were granted uniform pay scales
\nirrespective of their posting.  The controversy raised in
\nthe present matter relates to difference of pay scales
\nbetween lecturers who are trained and lecturers who are
\nuntrained.  A Fitment Committee was appointed by the
\nGovernment to consider the pay scales of trained and
\nuntrained lecturers.  The Fitment Committee considered
\nthe question and recommended different pay scales for
\ntrained and untrained lecturers.  The State Government
\naccepted the recommendation of the Fitment Committee
\nand fixed pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 for untrained
\nlecturers and Rs.6500-10500 for trained lecturers.
\nGovernment Resolution was passed on February 8, 1999
\nand a notification was issued on June 10, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThere was resentment amongst the employees
\nagainst fixation of two different pay scales of +2 Lecturers
\non the basis of training.  A writ petition was, therefore,
\nfiled by the Association challenging classification made
\non the basis of training.  A Fitment Appellate Committee
\nwas, therefore, constituted by the State Government
\npresided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court by an
\norder dated January 15, 2000 to go into the anomalies in
\npay scales of trained lecturers and untrained lecturers.
\nThe Fitment Appellate Committee submitted its report,
\nrecommending payment of uniform pay scales to trained
\nas well as untrained lecturers observing that different
\npay scales to trained and untrained lecturers would be
\narbitrary and unreasonable.  The State Government,
\nhowever, maintained that there is difference between
\ntrained lecturers and untrained lecturers and difference
\nin pay scales would not violate Article 14<\/a> of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tThe learned single Judge who heard the writ
\npetition upheld the contention of the State Government
\nand dismissed the petition filed by the Association
\nholding that in making distinction between trained
\nlecturers and untrained lecturers and in fixing different
\npay scales, State Government had not violated any
\nprovision of the Constitution and the petition was liable
\nto be dismissed.  The Division Bench, however, as
\nobserved earlier, allowed the appeal, set aside the order
\npassed by the single Judge and directed the State
\nAuthorities to grant uniform pay scales to trained and
\nuntrained lecturers.  The order passed by the Division
\nBench is challenged by the State Authorities in the
\npresent Appeal by Special Leave.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tOn January 6, 2005, notice was issued by this
\nCourt and the party-respondents were directed to file
\naffidavit-in-reply.  Counter-affidavit as also affidavit-in-
\nrejoinder were thereafter filed.  The Court directed the
\nRegistry to place the matter for final disposal and that is
\nhow the matter is before us.  We have heard learned
\ncounsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe learned counsel for the State contended
\nthat the Division Bench of the High Court was wholly
\nwrong in holding that there can be no difference between
\ntrained lecturers and untrained lecturers and that
\ndifference in pay scales would be arbitrary, unreasonable
\nand violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution.  It was
\nsubmitted that trained and untrained lecturers form
\ndifferent class and such classification is rational and
\nreasonable.  Fixation of different pay scales, therefore,
\ncannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational.  It was also
\nsubmitted that though the Fitment Appellate Committee
\nrecommended payment of uniform pay scales to trained
\nand untrained lecturers, the said decision was not in
\nconsonance with law.  It was submitted that the learned
\nsingle Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition and
\nthe Division Bench ought to have confirmed that order.
\nRegarding advertisement issued by the Authorities for
\nmaking appointment of +2 Lecturers and non-mention
\nabout training, it was submitted that it related to
\neligibility for appointment and had nothing to do with pay
\nscales.  The Appellate Committee was, therefore, wrong in
\nrelying on the said fact and in recommending uniform
\npay scales to all lecturers.  It was, therefore, submitted
\nthat the order passed by the Division Bench may be set
\naside by restoring the order of the single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe learned counsel for the Association, on the
\nother hand, supported the order passed by the Division
\nBench.  He submitted that classification sought to be
\nmade on the basis of training is totally artificial,
\nirrational and arbitrary.  Untrained lecturers cannot be
\ndeprived of legitimate pay scales to which their
\ncounterparts (trained lecturers) were held entitled.  It was
\nbecause of the legitimate grievance by untrained
\nlecturers that a Fitment Appellate Committee presided
\nover by a sitting Judge of the High Court was constituted
\nby the State Government.  In terms of reference, it was
\nexpressly stated that the State Government will accept
\nthe recommendation of the Committee and when the said
\nCommittee recommended to grant uniform pay scales to
\ntrained and untrained lecturers, it was not open to the
\nState Government not to accept and implement the said
\nrecommendation.  The learned single Judge was not right
\nin dismissing the petition filed by the Association of
\nuntrained lecturers.  It was further submitted that
\nuntrained lecturers were performing similar functions
\nand discharging similar duties.  Moreover, after the
\nreport of the Appellate Committee, the State Government
\nwithdrew the order sending untrained lecturers for taking
\ntraining on the ground that no such training was
\nnecessary in view of the report submitted and
\nrecommendation made by the Committee and payment of
\nuniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers.  It
\nwas, therefore, submitted that even State Authorities
\nhave also proceeded on the footing that there is no
\ndistinction between trained and untrained lecturers so
\nfar as pay scales are concerned.  The Division Bench was,
\ntherefore, right in allowing the appeal and no grievance
\ncan be made against the directions issued by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tHaving considered the rival contentions of the
\nparties, in our opinion, the Division Bench was not right
\nin holding that distinction between trained lecturers and
\nuntrained lecturers is arbitrary, irrational or otherwise
\nobjectionable.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tNow, it is well settled and cannot be disputed
\nthat Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution guarantees equality
\nbefore the law and confers equal protection of laws.  It
\nprohibits the State from denying persons or class of
\npersons equal treatment; provided they are equals and
\nare similarly situated.  It, however, does not forbid
\nclassification.  In other words, what Article 14<\/a> prohibits
\nis discrimination and not classification if otherwise such
\nclassification is legal, valid and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tBefore more than half a century, a
\nConstitution Bench of this Court was called upon to
\nconsider ambit and scope of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution
\nin a celebrated decision in State of West Bengal v. Anwar
\nAli Sarkar<\/a>, 1952 SCR 284.  There, constitutional validity
\nof certain provisions of the West Bengal Special Courts
\nAct, 1950 was challenged on the ground that they were
\ndiscriminatory and violative of Article 14<\/a> of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tDealing with the contention, S.R. Das, J. (as
\nhis Lordship then was) made the following instructive
\nobservations which were cited with approval in several
\nsubsequent cases;\n<\/p>\n
“It is now well established that while Article
\n14<\/a> is designed to prevent a person or class of
\npersons from being singled out from others
\nsimilarly situated for the purpose of being
\nspecially subjected to discriminating and
\nhostile legislation, it does not insist on an
\n`abstract symmetry’ in the sense that every
\npiece of legislation must have universal
\napplication.  All persons are not, by nature,
\nattainment or circumstances, equal and the
\nvarying needs of different classes of persons
\noften require separate treatment and,
\ntherefore, the protecting clause has been
\nconstrued as a guarantee against
\ndiscrimination amongst equals only and not
\nas taking away from the State the power to
\nclassify persons for the purpose of legislation.
\nThis classification may be on different bases.
\nIt may be geographical or according to objects
\nor occupations or the like.  Mere
\nclassification, however, is not enough to get
\nover the inhibition of the article.  The
\nclassification must not be arbitrary but must
\nbe rational, that is to say, it must not only be
\nbased on some qualities or characteristics
\nwhich are to be found in all the persons
\ngrouped together and not in others who are
\nleft out but those qualities or characteristics
\nmust have a reasonable relation to the object
\nof the legislation.  In order to pass the test,
\ntwo conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1)
\nthat the classification must be founded on an
\nintelligible differentia which distinguishes
\nthose that are grouped together from others,
\nand (2 that that differentia must have a
\nrational relation to the object sought to be
\nachieved by the Act.  The differentia which is
\nthe basis of the classification and the object
\nof the Act are distinct things and what is
\nnecessary is that there must be a nexus
\nbetween them.  In short, while the article
\nforbids class legislation in the sense of making
\nimproper discrimination by conferring
\nprivileges or imposing liabilities upon persons
\narbitrarily selected out of a large number of
\nother persons similarly situated in relation to
\nthe privileges sought to be conferred or the
\nliability proposed to be imposed, it does not
\nforbid classification for the purpose of
\nlegislation, provided such classification is not
\narbitrary in the sense I have just explained.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
14.\t\tRecently, in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen &
\nOrs. v. Union of India & Ors<\/a>., (2006) 8 SCC 399, it was
\ncontended by the petitioners that the classification
\nbetween in-service and retired employees was invalid,
\nillegal and unreasonable.  Likewise, differentiation
\nbetween defence personnel and civil personnel was
\narbitrary and irrational.  The contention was, however,
\nrejected by this Court holding that they form different
\nclass and Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution could not be said
\nto have been violated.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tAgain, in Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India
\n& Ors<\/a>., (2007) 1 SCC 732, it was argued that
\nclassification between Government employees and
\nemployees of Companies, Corporations and other Public
\nSector Undertakings which can be said to be `State’
\nwithin the meaning of Article 12<\/a> of the Constitution
\nwould be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious.  But
\nargument was negatived by this Court observing that
\ndistinction between employees of Central Government
\nand State Governments (Civil Servants) on the one hand
\nand other employees i.e. employees of Companies,
\nCorporations or other Public Sector Undertakings on the
\nother hand, is well founded and well defined.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tIn Confederation of Ex-Servicemen, after
\nconsidering leading cases on equal protection clause
\nenshrined in Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution, speaking for a
\nfive-Judge Bench, one of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) stated:
\n“In our judgment, therefore, it is clear
\nthat every classification to be legal, valid
\nand permissible, must fulfil the twin test,
\nnamely, <\/p>\n
(i) the classification must be founded on
\nan intelligible differentia which must
\ndistinguish persons or things that are
\ngrouped together from others leaving out
\nor left out; and<\/p>\n
(ii) such a differentia must have rational
\nnexus to the object sought to be achieved
\nby the statute or legislation in question.”\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tA legal and valid classification may be based
\non educational qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tIn State of Mysore & Anr. v. P. Narsinga Rao,
\n(1968) 1 SCR 407 : AIR 1968 SC 349, different pay scales
\nwere prescribed for tracers; one for matriculate tracers
\nwhich was higher than the other for non-matriculate
\ntracers which was lower.  The action was held legal,
\nlawful and not violative of Article 14<\/a> or 16 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tThe Constitution Bench of this Court stated:-
\n“It is well settled that though Article 14<\/a>
\nforbids class legislation, it does not forbid
\nreasonable classification for the purposes
\nof legislation.  When any impugned rule
\nor statutory provision is assailed on the
\nground that it contravenes Article 14<\/a>, its
\nvalidity can be sustained if two tests are
\nsatisfied.  The first test is that the
\nclassification on which it is founded must
\nbe based on an intelligible differentia
\nwhich distinguishes persons or things
\ngrouped together from others left out of
\nthe group, and the second test is that the
\ndifferentia in question must have a
\nreasonable relation to the object sought
\nto be achieved by the rule or statutory
\nprovision in question.  In other words,
\nthere must be some rational nexus
\nbetween the basis of classification and the
\nobject intended to be achieved by the
\nstatute or the rule.”\n<\/p>\n
                   (emphasis supplied)   <\/p>\n
20.\t\tIn State of Jammu & Kashimir v. Triloki Nath
\nKhosla & Ors<\/a>., (1974) 1 SCC 19, this Court upheld the
\nclassification for promotion on the basis of academic and
\ntechnical qualifications.  It was contended on behalf of
\nthe diploma-holders that classification sought to be made
\nby the State between `degree-holders’ and `diploma-
\nholders’, was illegal and artificial and denial of promotion
\nto diploma-holders while granting such benefit to degree-
\nholders had violated Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution.  But
\nthe argument was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tChandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was)
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
“On the facts of the case, classification on the
\nbasis of educational qualifications made with
\na view to achieving administrative efficiency
\ncannot be said to rest on any fortuitous
\ncircumstance and one has always to bear in
\nmind the facts and circumstances of the case
\nin order to judge the validity of a
\nclassification.  The provision in the 1939
\nRules restricting direct recruitment of
\nAssistant Engineers to Engineering
\ngraduates, the dearth of graduates in times
\npast and their copious flow in times present
\nare all matters which can legitimately enter
\nthe judgment of the rule-making authority.
\nIn the light of these facts, that judgment
\ncannot be assailed as capricious or fanciful.
\nEfficiency which comes in the trail of higher
\nmental equipment can reasonably be
\nattempted to be achieved by restricting
\npromotional opportunities to these
\npossessing higher educational qualifications.
\nAnd we are concerned with the
\nreasonableness of the classification, not with
\nthe precise accuracy of the decision to
\nclassify nor with the question whether the
\nclassification is scientific.  Such tests have
\nlong since been discarded.  In fact, American
\ndecisions have gone as far as saying that
\nclassification would offend against the 14th
\nAmendment of the American Constitution
\nonly if it is “purely arbitrary, oppressive or
\ncapricious” and the inequality produced in
\norder to encounter the challenge of the
\nConstitution must be “actually and palpably
\nunreasonably and arbitrary”. We need not go
\nthat far as the differences between the two
\nclasses  graduates and diploma-holders
\nfurnish a reasonable basis for separate
\ntreatment and bear a just relation to the
\npurpose of the impugned provision.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tIn Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India
\n& Ors<\/a>., (1994) 2 SCC 521, different pay scales were
\nprescribed for Pharmacists on the consideration of
\nqualifications and experience.  Whereas higher pay scales
\nwere fixed for qualified Pharmacists, unqualified
\nPharmacists were paid lower pay scales.  It was ruled
\nthat it was open to the Government to prescribe different
\npay scales for different categories of Pharmacists on the
\nbasis of qualifications and experience.  The Court held
\nthat doctrine of `equal pay for equal work’ should not be
\napplied in a mechanical or casual manner.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tIn U.P. State Sugar Corporation & Anr. v. Sant
\nRaj Singh<\/a>, (2006) 9 SCC 82, this Court held that
\neducational qualification can be a criterion for
\ndifferentiation in pay scales.  Possession of higher
\nqualification can be treated a valid base for classification
\nof two categories of employees, even if no such
\nrequirement is prescribed at the time of recruitment.  If
\nsuch a distinction is drawn, no complaint can be made
\nthat it would violate Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution or
\nwould be contrary to Article 39(d)<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tIt is true that `equal pay for equal work’ is a
\ndoctrine well established in service jurisprudence and is
\nalso a concomitant of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution.  But
\nas observed by this Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v.
\nBalram Sahoo<\/a>, (2000) 3 SCC 250, equal pay would
\ndepend upon not only on the nature or volume of work
\nbut also on quality of work as regards reliability and
\nresponsibility as well and different pay scales may be
\nprescribed on the basis of such reliability and
\nresponsibility.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tIt was contended on behalf of untrained
\nlecturers Association before the High Court as well as
\nbefore us that trained lecturers and untrained lecturers
\nwere performing similar functions and discharging
\nsimilar duties.  It was, therefore, not open to the State
\nAuthorities to pay different pay scales to them.  The
\nlearned single Judge negatived the contention observing
\nand, in our opinion, rightly, that training was one of the
\nmost important factors for determining pay scales.  A
\ndistinction between trained and untrained lecturers for
\nthe purpose of prescribing pay scales is, therefore, valid
\nand reasonable.  Importance of training, in our judgment,
\ncannot be ignored or under-estimated.  Unfortunately,
\nthe Division Bench set aside the order passed by the
\nlearned single Judge upholding the argument of
\nuntrained lecturers Association and by granting them
\npay scales prescribed for trained lecturers.\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tNow, let us consider few decisions of this
\nCourt on the need and necessity of training.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t\tIn Andhra Kesari Educational Society v.
\nDirector of School Education & Ors<\/a>., (1989) 1 SCC 392,
\nthis Court emphasized the need and importance of
\ntrained teachers in schools.  Speaking for the Court,
\nJagannatha Shetty, J., made the following illuminating
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
“Before parting with the case, we should like to
\nadd a word more.  Though teaching is the last
\nchoice in the job market, the role of teachers is
\ncentral to all processes of formal education.
\nThe teacher alone could bring out the skills
\nand intellectual capabilities of students.  He is
\nthe `engine’ of the educational system.  He is a
\nprincipal instrument in awakening the child to
\ncultural values.  He needs to be endowed and
\nenergized with needed potential to deliver
\nenlightened service expected of him.  His
\nquality should be such as would inspire and
\nmotivate into action the benefiter.  He must
\nkeep himself abreast of everchanging
\nconditions.  He is not to perform in a wooden
\nand unimaginative way.  He must eliminate
\nfissiparous tendencies and attitudes and
\ninfuse nobler and national ideas in younger
\nminds.  His involvement in national integration
\nis more important, indeed indispensable.  It is,
\ntherefore, needless to state that teachers should
\nbe subjected to rigorous training with rigid
\nscrutiny of efficiency.  It has greater relevance
\nto the needs of the day.  The ill-trained or sub-
\nstandard teachers would be detrimental to our
\neducational system; if not a punishment on our
\nchildren.  The government and the University
\nmust, therefore, take care to see that
\ninadequacy in the training of teachers is not
\ncompounded by any extraneous consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    (Emphasis supplied)\t  <\/p>\n
28.\t\tIn Ram Sukh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan &
\nOrs<\/a>., (1989) Supp (2) SCC  189, untrained teachers were
\nremoved from service on the availability of trained
\nteachers.  The action was challenged on the ground that
\nthe petitioners were also teachers and their services
\ncould not be terminated only on the ground that trained
\nteachers were available.  It was also urged that even if
\nsuch training is necessary, untrained teachers should be
\ngiven an opportunity to undergo such training.  This
\nCourt, however, rejected the contention, observing that a
\nCourt of Law cannot direct the Government to continue
\nuntrained teachers in service till they are trained.\n<\/p>\n
29.\t\tReferring to Andhra Kesari Educational Society,
\nthe Court stated:\n<\/p>\n
“These observations are equally relevant to
\nprimary school teachers with whom we are
\nconcerned.  The primary school teachers are
\nof utmost importance in developing a child’s
\npersonality in the formative years.  It is not
\njust enough to teach the child alphabets and
\nfigures, but must more is required to
\nunderstand child psychology and aptitudes.
\nThey need a different approach altogether.
\nOnly trained teachers could lead them
\nproperly.  The untrained teachers can never
\nbe proper substitute to trained teachers.  We
\nare, therefore, unable to give any relief to the
\npetitioners.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
30.\t\tIn L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T.N. &
\nOrs<\/a>., (2000) 7 SCC 618, this Court stated that mere
\npassing of a public examination is not enough.  It must
\nbe coupled with proper training in a recognized
\neducational institution.\n<\/p>\n
31.\t\tQuoting with approval observations from
\nearlier cases, this Court said;\n<\/p>\n
“.We are of the considered opinion that
\nbefore teachers are allowed to teach innocent
\nchildren, they must receive appropriate and
\nadequate training in a recognized training
\ninstitute satisfying the prescribed norms,
\notherwise the standard of education and
\ncareers of children will be jeopardised.  In
\nmost civilized and advanced countries, the
\njob of a teacher in a primary school is
\nconsidered an important and crucial one
\nbecause moulding of young minds begins in
\nprimary schools.  Allowing ill-trained teachers
\ncoming out of derecognized or unrecognized
\ninstitutes or licensing them to teach children
\nof an impressionable age, contrary to the
\nnorms prescribed, will be detrimental to the
\ninterest of the nation itself in the sense that
\nin the process of building a great nation,
\nteachers and educational institutions also
\nplay a vital role.  In cases like these, interest
\nof individuals cannot be placed above or
\npreferred to the larger public interest.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t           (Emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
32.\t\tIn our judgment, the law appears to be well
\nsettled.  There is a clear distinction between a trained
\nteacher (lecturer) and an untrained teacher (lecturer).
\nSuch a distinction is legal, valid, rational and reasonable.
\nTrained lecturers and untrained lecturers, therefore, can
\nneither be said to be similarly circumstanced nor they
\nform one and the same class.  The classification is
\nreasonable and is based on intelligible differentia which
\ndistinguishes one class (trained) included therein from
\nthe other class (untrained) which is left out.  Such
\nclassification or differentia has a rational nexus or
\nreasonable relation to the object intended to be achieved,
\nviz., imparting education to students.  It, therefore,
\ncannot be successfully contended that different pay
\nscales cannot be fixed for trained lecturers on one hand
\nand untrained lecturers on the other hand.  Prescribing
\ndifferent pay scales, under the circumstances, cannot be
\nheld illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing Article
\n14<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
33.\t\tIt was also argued both before the single Judge
\nand also before the Division Bench of the High Court that
\nthe Appellate Fitment Committee recommended uniform
\npay scales to trained and untrained lecturers.  The
\nsubmission was based on the ground that when
\nadvertisement for appointment of +2 Lecturers was
\nissued, only requirement insisted upon was that a
\ncandidate must have Post-Graduate Degree in Class II.
\nThere was no reference as to training by the candidates.
\nThe learned single Judge held that the requirement
\nmentioned in the advertisement related to `eligibility’ and
\nit had no relevance to pay scales.  The Division Bench,
\nhowever, was of the opinion that in absence of anything
\nregarding training by candidates, no different pay scales
\ncould be provided by the Authorities.  To us, learned
\nsingle Judge was wholly right in holding that the
\neducational qualification specified in the advertisement
\nwas limited to eligibility of candidates to be appointed
\nand it had nothing to do with fixing of pay scales.\n<\/p>\n
34.\t\tIt was also urged before the High Court that an
\nExpert Committee was appointed by the State
\nGovernment which had taken a decision and normally
\nsuch a decision is not interfered with either by the
\nExecutive or by the Judiciary.\n<\/p>\n
35.\t\tSo far as the principle is concerned, there can
\nbe no two opinions about it.  In the instant case,
\nhowever, the Division Bench was wrong in invoking the
\nsaid doctrine for granting uniform pay scales to trained
\nand untrained lecturers.  We have already noted that a
\nFitment Committee was appointed by the State
\nGovernment which was an `Expert Committee’.   That
\nCommittee made clear distinction between trained
\nlecturers and untrained lecturers.\n<\/p>\n
36.\t     The Fitment Committee, in its report stated;
\n“We recommend that for Trained Graduate
\nTeachers the system that is available in the
\nKendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan or in the
\nNational Capital Territory of Delhi
\nAdministration should be followed.  The
\nsystem of giving promotions based on higher
\neducational qualification has to be stopped
\nand the pattern in the Centre whereby direct
\nrecruitment is done both at the level of
\nTrained Graduate and Post Graduate Trained
\nTeachers will have to be adopted.  The Bihar
\nTaken over Elementary School Teachers
\nPromotion Rules, 1993 which has come in
\nforce from 1.1.1986 requires to be amended
\nand brought in line with what is prevailing in
\nthe Centre.  In the Kendriya Vidyalaya
\nSangathan according to an order dated
\n29.4.97 promotion quota from PRT to TGT
\nand TGT to PGT has been increased from
\n33.3% to 50%.  This system or the pattern in
\nthe Delhi Administration has to be adopted in
\nBihar if Central scales are to become
\napplicable.”\n<\/p>\n
37.\t\tThe Fitment Appellate Committee agreed with
\nthe above observations and observed;
\n“This Committee agrees with the views of the
\nFitment Committee.  There is enough
\ndeterioration in education standards in this
\nState.  No further downslide in be tolerated.”\n<\/p>\n
38.\t\tThe Appellate Committee, however, strongly
\nrelied upon one and only one circumstance that since in
\nthe advertisement nothing was mentioned about training,
\ndifferent pay scales could not be prescribed by the State
\nfor trained and untrained lecturers.\n<\/p>\n
39.\t\tIn paragraph 31.49, the Appellate Committee
\nstated:-\n<\/p>\n
“The Fitment Committee’s mandate was to
\nestablish equivalence with Central posts and
\nrecommend scales accordingly.  In the case of
\npost-graduate +2 Lecturers a clear
\nequivalence was available with the post of
\npost graduate teachers in the Central
\nSchools.  Therefore, this is a case where there
\ncan be very little doubt about the exacters of
\nthe equivalence.  The argument that in Delhi
\nthey also teach IX and X standard is very
\ntenuous.  Moreover, if training is necessary
\nfor such teachers in Delhi which by all
\nstandards has a better academic record than
\ntheir counterpart in Bihar- then it is all the
\nmore necessary for teachers in Bihar.  The
\nFitment Committee has gone by Central
\nequivalence were the scale of Rs.6500-10500
\nis provided to trained teachers only.  The
\nCommittee, therefore, could not have
\nrecommended this scale for untrained
\nteachers. However, this Committee feels that
\nthe ground that the original advertisement did
\nnot require “training” as an essential
\nqualification is very relevant because
\nimposition of such conditions on a later date is
\nclearly discriminatory and the present
\nincumbents cannot be denied the higher scale
\nof Rs.6500-10500, even if they are untrained.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
40.\t\tWe are afraid the approach of the Fitment
\nAppellate Committee was not in consonance with law.  If
\nthere is distinction between trained and untrained
\nlecturers and if such classification is reasonable and
\nrational, there is nothing wrong in prescribing different
\npay scales for trained lecturers and untrained lecturers
\nand there was no reason for the Appellate Committee to
\ndiffer from the view taken by the Fitment Committee and
\nby the State Government.  The advertisement could be
\nread, as ruled by a single Judge as an eligibility criterion
\nand nothing more than that.  By reading the
\nadvertisement in that manner, the purpose could have
\nbeen achieved by appointing and by retaining untrained
\nlecturers in-service as also by fulfilling the object of fixing
\ndifferent pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers.
\nUnfortunately, the Division Bench failed to reconcile the
\nadvertisement and fixation of pay scales by properly
\nappreciating the views expressed by the Fitment
\nCommittee and accepted by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
41.\t\tThe above discussion would normally result
\ninto the appeal being allowed by setting aside the order
\npassed by the Division Bench and by restoring the order
\nof the learned single Judge upholding the action of the
\nState Government.  In the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, however, we are not persuaded to set aside the
\norder of the Division Bench in exercise of discretionary
\njurisdiction of this Court under Article 136<\/a> read with
\nArticle 142<\/a> of the Constitution mainly because of two
\nreasons;\n<\/p>\n
42.\t\tFirstly, when the Appellate Fitment Committee
\nwas appointed by the State Government presided over by
\na sitting Judge of the High Court of Patna and the matter
\nwas referred as regards anomaly in pay scales to trained
\nand untrained lecturers, the reference expressly
\nmentioned that the State Government will accept the
\nrecommendation of the Committee and the Committee
\nrecommended payment of uniform pay scales to trained
\nas well as untrained teachers.\n<\/p>\n
43.\t\tSecondly, it was stated in the Affidavit-in-reply
\nfiled by the untrained lecturers Association (writ
\npetitioners) that after the report of the Fitment Appellate
\nCommittee, the State Government on January 22, 2001
\nwithdrew its earlier order dated October 19, 2000 for
\nsending untrained lecturers (in-service candidates) for
\ntaking training on the ground that no such training was
\nmandatory in view of report of the Committee and when
\nuniform pay-scales were to be given to trained as well as
\nuntrained lecturers.\n<\/p>\n
44.\t\tFor the reasons aforesaid, though we are
\nfirmly of the view that the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Patna was not right in holding
\nthat there is no distinction between trained lecturers on
\nthe one hand and untrained lecturers on the other hand
\nand no different pay scales can be prescribed for trained
\nand untrained lecturers and such fixation of pay scales
\nwould violate Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution, and though
\nwe hold that the learned single Judge was right in
\nupholding the classification between trained and
\nuntrained lecturers as rational, reasonable and
\nintelligible, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we
\ndo not intend to interfere with the final direction issued
\nby the Division Bench in the light of two circumstances
\nreferred to above.  Appeal is accordingly disposed of.  In
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, however, there
\nshall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007 Author: C Thakker Bench: C.K. Thakker, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2519 of 2007 PETITIONER: State of Bihar & Ors RESPONDENT: Bihar State +2 Lecturers Associations & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/05\/2007 BENCH: C.K. Thakker […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-25T22:56:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T22:56:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":5054,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T22:56:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-25T22:56:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T22:56:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007"},"wordCount":5054,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007","name":"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T22:56:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-ors-vs-bihar-state-2-lecturers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar State +2 Lecturers … on 15 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}