1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is by the Union of Primary School Teachers in Hindi employed in Schools run by the Bhilai Steel Project and by a teacher in Hindi in one of the Schools.
2. The petitioners' grievance is that in the Primary Schools run by the Bhilai Steel Project the scales of pay of teachers and headmasters of Hindi Primary Schools are lower than the scales of pay of teachers and head masters employed in the English Primary Schools. Their contention is that this difference is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and they pray that a direction be issued to the respondents commanding them to give to the teachers and headmasters of Hindi Primary Schools the same scales of pay as are given to the teachers and headmasters in English Primary Schools.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that this application must be dismissed. It is not necessary to enter into an examination of the relative competence, ability and work of Hindi teachers and English teachers. Even if it be assumed that the teachers employed in the Primary Schools run by the Bhilai Steel Project are State employees and that the teachers and headmasters employed in Hindi, Primary Schools do the same work as is done by the teachers and headmasters in English Primary Schools and are in no way inferior to those teaching English, still the difference in the scales of pay of those teaching Hindi and those teaching English cannot be held to be offending Article 14 of the Constitution. This is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kishori v. Union of India, (AIR 1962 SC 1139) and State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 SC 913. In both these cases it has been pointed out that the State can constitute two services consisting of employees doing the same work but with different scales of pay or subject to different conditions of service and that the constitution of such services is not violative of Article 14 and further that the proposition that equal work must receive equal pay or that if there is equality in pay and work there have to be equal conditions of service is untenable. The matter is, therefore, concluded by the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and the petitioners' contention that teachers and headmasters in Hindi Primary Schools must be given the same scales of pay as are given to teachers and headmasters in English Primary Schools cannot be accepted.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that there was disparity in the chances of promotion between Hindi teachers and English teachers and that this disparity was contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. The contention cannot be entertained as it has not been raised in the petition. The petitioners have made no attempt to show how and in what manner there is disparity in the matter of promotion as between Hindi teachers and English teachers. It must also be pointed out that if the qualifications prescribed for Hindi teachers and English teachers are different, if the methods of recruitment of these teachers are different and these teachers have separate avenues of promotion, then Hindi and English teachers form two distinct and separate classes. That being so, 'as between them, there can be no scope for predicating equality or inequality of opportunity in matters of promotion.' As pointed out by the Supreme Court in All India Station Masters' and Asst. Station Masters' Association, Delhi v. General Manager, Central Railway, AIR 1960 SC 384 and AIR 1963 SC 913, 'if there are two distinct services, there can be no question of inter se seniority between members of the two services, nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Article 14 or Article 16.'
5. For these reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 150/-. The outstanding amount of the security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioners.