Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against an order of the Learned Single Judge whereby the Learned Judge made the Rule
absolute in the writ petition filed by the respondents. Learned Judge also passed, inter alia, the following directions :
The respondents are directed to revise the Pay Scale of the petitioners in the Scale of Rs. 425-1050/- after unifying and abolition of the two grades
in the post of Inspectors of Housing Department with effect from the 1st April, 1981. Respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners all arrears
of salaries and allowances within four months from the date of communication of this order
The facts, inter alia, leading to this appeal are that the post of Inspectors were created in or about March, 1956 in the Development Department
under the Government of West Bengal. For the purpose of appointment to the said post of Inspectors, the Government prescribed recruitment
regulations and according to the said regulations graduates working in the Government offices were eligible for selection and appointment. For the
purpose of appointment to the said post of Inspectors knowledge of Civil and Criminal Law and their application were essential, apart from the
fact that they should be well conversant with the office procedures and accounts matters. Though the said posts were originally created for the
Development Department with the said posts were transferred to the Housing Department and the Inspectors were to look after the Middle
Income Group Housing and Low Income Group Housing and the scale of pay prescribed for the said post of Inspector was Rs. 100-200.
Originally the posts were created on temporary basis.
2. By a notification issued by the Department of Finance Government of West Bengal being Notification No. 5472-F dated 27th December, 1961
published in the Calcutta Gazatte Extraordinary dated 2nd January 1962 the said department amended the West Bengal Service Rules 1961. by
prescribing and/or reviving the scale of pay of the employees under the Government of West Bengal notwithstanding the fact that the respondents
as Inspectors were employees under the Government of West Bengal and notwithstanding the fact that as inspectors were employees under the
Government of West Bengal and the cadre of Inspector was borne in the cadre of Civil servant, the said pay Commission kept silent with regard to
scales prescribed for the said post of Inspectors and though the said revision in the scales of pay was for abolishing the different scales of pay for
the same post carrying and similar nature of responsibilities recommended the scale of pay Rs. 150-250/- for the Inspectors of the Housing
Department. As a matter of fact this revision in the scale of pay and fixation of the scale of payment Rs. 150-250/- was challenged in the writ
petition as wholly arbitrary and the said fixation was alleged to have been made without making any assessment, without considering the
responsibilities and the performances attached to the said post. It is significant to note that the said scale of pay was prescribed for the Lower
Division Clerk. It is further contention of the respondent (sic) petitioners in the writ petition that from the very beginning i.e. (sic) post of Inspectors
in the Housing Department were included in the proper cadre and the status of the Inspectors were not at all maintained and therefore, the posts of
Inspectors were even lower in status than the Upper Division Clerk. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that for the purpose of appointment
as a Lower Division Clerk the required qualification was Matriculate and, the nature of job is sterotyped and completely clerical. From the
recruitment regulations and prescription of eligibility criteria it would reveal that post of Inspector could in no way be equated with Upper Division
Clerk even not to speak of Lower Division Clerk. As a matter of fact the nature of job of Inspectors was prescribed by the Government Order
No. 1990-I K-87/55 dated 2.3.1956 and from the said Government Order it would reveal that the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors are
verification of income of the applicants and that of the surety by examining the trade licence and various other licences and examination of books of
accounts and verification of pay certificate and verification of title deeds and documents in the matter of agricultural land for ascertaining the income
from the source of agriculture. Secondly to varify the title to the land where the proposed building was to be errected and mortgated to the
Government.
3. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners/respondents that it would be crystal clear that duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors do not
only in office but also in the field in the nature of inspection. From the said Government order it would also reveal that if on any occasion the Head
Clerk is absent. Inspectors are to take the charge of the work of the Head Clerk and in absence of Officer-in-Charge of the department to meet
the visitors. In the said government order the official works were also prescribed. It is very unfortunate that the pay Commission which prescribed
the scale of pay on the basis of duties and responsibilities attached to the said post revised the scales of pay and on that basis recommended a
scale of pay which is wholly unwarranted for the post of Inspector of Housing Department. It is further significant to note that the said pay
Commission recommended the scale of pay at Rs. 175-325/- for Inspectors of other departments who possess less academic qualification and
perform less duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the recommendation of the pay Commission with regard to the scale of pay for inspectors was
made not on any objective and/or rational materials but the said was made on some subjective and on imaginary grounds.
4. That against the aforesaid arbitrary fixation of pay of the Inspectors of the Housing Department the writ petitioners/ respondents submitted
representation before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority could well realise the contention and/or grievances of the Inspectors
of the Housing Department and in order to meet the grievances of the Inspectors instead of abolishing the discrimination, the respondents further
reiterated their discriminatory action by creating gradation among the same grades of Inspectors. As a matter of fact by Government Order No.
2044 dated 4th June, 1965 the post of Inspectors were graded one as Inspector grade - I in the scale of pay Rs. 175-325/- and another as
Inspector Grade -II in the scale of pay Rs. 150-250/-.
5. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners/respondents that the said gradation of the post of Inspectors as Grade- I and Grade - II and
prescribing a higher scale of pay for grade-I has no rational nexus between the performance, duties and responsibilities and this scale of pay
attached to the said post and as such this Government order is on the face of it arbitrary, devoid of any reason and capricious. It has been alleged
that there was and there is no intelligible differential amongst the Inspectors for the purpose of enabling the Respondents to make a rational
discrimination amongst the Inspector. The writ petitioners/respondents submitted that the Inspectors performing same and identical nature of job
cannot be discriminated with regard to fixation of scale of pay. It is the case of the respondents/writ petitioners that the Inspectors of the Housing
Department are a class by themsleves and there is no difference between the work of Inspectors Grade -I and Inspector Grade - II and, therefore,
the fixation of higher scale of pay for a particular group of Inspectors and fixation of pay in lower scale for another group are highly discriminatory
and violative of rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners/respondents submitted that the
respondents as Inspectors of Housing Department are performing the same and identical nature of job and as such the respondents according to
their accepted principles have issued different notifications in similar circumstances the discrimination, distinction, difference among the same class
of Government employee, should be abolished and one scale of pay should be introduced for Inspectors of Housing Department as they are
engaged in similar same and identical nature of job.
6. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners/respondents that the respondents submitted a memorandum to the Chairman of the pay
Commission of 1961 and the Commission alter persuing the record and going through the memorandum was prima facie (sic) that the scales of pay
fixed for the Inspectors Grade-I and Grade - II axe discriminatory and also realised that the scale of pay that was prescribed in 1961 for all the
inspectors as Rs. 150-250/ is also not commensurate with the work and/or duties and responsibilities attached to the said post of Inspector and as
such the Commission recommended revised scale of pay of 350 - 600/ - and also they further recommended to abolish the artificial gradation that
was made purporting to mitigate the grievances of the Inspectors of Housing Department.
7. It is very significant to note that though the Government could well realise that the Inspectors of the Housing Department have been deprived of
scale of pay commensurate with their duties and responsibilities and notwithstanding the fact that the Chairman of pay Commission, 1970 clearly
recommended the scale of pay of the Inspectors as Rs. 350-600/- and abolition of gradation by the West Bengal Services Rules, 1970, the scale
of pay for the Inspectors of L.I.C.G.H. Scheme, Howrah, Collectorate was equated with the scale of pay of the Lower Division Clerk, i.e. Rs.
230/- -405/- later on the Housing Department allowed the Inspectors Grade- I the scale of pay of Rs. 350-600/- and the Inspectors Grade-II
were kept in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk by forcing them to draw scale of pay of Rs. 230-425/-. The writ petitioners/respondents submitted
that the discrimination that was started from 1961 was reaffirmed by the 2nd pay Commission and /or Second revision of the scales of pay in
1981. It has further been submitted that by this fixation of scale of pay for Inspectors of the Housing Department and keeping gradation alive the
respondents authorities have violated the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That this
fixation of scale of pay in 1970 for Inspectors Grade-I AND Grade-II has no relevant connection between the pay and performance of duties and
obligations of respective offices and that such fixation of the scale of pay is wholly arbitrary devoid of any reason and on the facts of it capricious.
The writ petitioners/respondents contended that there was no reason and there cannot be any reasonable ground and/or any intelligible diffentia in
keeping alive the discrimination among the same catagories of persons and making an artificial differentia among the same catagories of persons by
grading Grade - I and Grade- II posts of Inspectors carrying different scales of pay but the duties and responsibilities remaining same and identical.
The writ petitioners/respondents further contended that this prescription of higher scale of pay for some Inspectors and lower scale of pay for
some other Inspectors though they were appointed on same basis and same qualification and for performing the same and identical nature of job,
amounted to unreasonable and irrational classification and treated equals as unequals. Whatever be its activity the Government is still the
government and is subject to restrain inherent in its position in a democratic society. Constitutional power conferred on the Government ''cannot be
exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in unprincipled manner. The case of the writ petitioners/respondents is that the powers conferred on the
government or public authority were to be exercised for the public good and that every activity of the Government must have a public element in it
and it must, therefore, be with reasons and guided by public if interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest and
government cannot act arbitrarily without any reason. In the instant case the fixation of scale of pay of the Inspectors as was observed by the
Chairman, pay Commission of 1961 and from his recommendation it would reveal that the gradation among the Inspectors and fixation of separate
scale of pay for each grade is wholly arbitrary and therefore, recommended one single scale of pay i.e. Rs. 350-600/- but the Government in
refusing to accept the said recommendation did not assign any reason and on the contrary, the respondents reiterated their discriminatory action
and equated a group of Inspectors with the Lower Division Clerk and kept alive the gradation which is the artificial gradation without any
intelligible differential and therefore, this fixation of scale of pay which is artificial gradation created among the same categories of persons is wholly
unconstitutional and invalid.
8. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners/respondents that the fixation of scale of pay of Inspectors and their gradation amounts to
treating equal as unequals. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classfiction for the purpose of legislation which classification
must satisfy the twin test of classification being founded on intelligible differential which distinguishes persons from things that are group and that
such differential must have a rational to the object sought to be achieved by the gradation. The respondents submitted that the privilage of the scale
of pay of Rs. 350-600/- given by the Government to Inspectors Grade- II keeping other Inspectors out of the said cadre has destroyed the bed of
equality as enshnised in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners/respondents further submitted that gradation among the same
the categories of persons and fixation of the same scale of pay according to the gradation without keeping in mind the duties and responsibilities
and the jobs performed by the Inspectors affects the interest relating to public employment and it is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of
India and the same is violative of well settled principle and/or concept of equal pay for equal work. It has been submitted that when it was found
that there cannot be any differentia between the Inspectors, they should have acted fairly and should have given equal treatment to all Inspectors of
the Housing Department who perform the same and identical nature of job. The writ petitioners/respondents further submitted that Articles 39D of
the Constitution of India imposes upon the respondents and obligation to see that the constitutional goal as enshrined in the said Article i.e. equal
pay for equal work is maintained. The respondents stated that, where all relevant considerations are same persons performing same and identical
nature of job cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different officers.
9. It is further contention of the writ petitioners/respondents that when the 3rd pay Commission was set up, it was expected that in order to
rationalise the scale of pay among the public servant the said pay Commission would definitely abolish the discrimination in fixation of pay which
was made earlier but unfortunately by the Revision of pay and Allowances Rules. 1981 the scales of pay of Grade-1 Inspectors have been revised
in the scale of Rs. 380-910/- and whereas the scale of pay of the Inspectors Grade-II has been revised as Rs. 340-750/-. This revision in the
scale of pay is nothing but revising and/ or keeping alive the discrimination which was started since 1971. The writ petitioners/respondents
submitted that from instance given, below it would be crystal clear that the Inspectors of the Housing Department have been deprived of their
legitimate claim and the scale of pay which is commensurate with the position status and duties and responsibilities of the same post.
10. Inspectors, Animal Husbandary and Dairy Department whose scale of pay was revised as Rs. 200-400/- in 1961, was given Rs. 300-600/- in
1971 and Rs. 425-1050/- was given in 1982 though the qualification for the said post is intermediate.
11. From the chart mentioned in the writ petitioner it appears that the Inspectors attached to the Housing Department were and are always
discriminated from the Inspectors of other department in as much as Inspectors of Housing Department were and are discriminated among
themselves with regard 10 fixation of their scales of pay. The writ petitioners/respondents further submitted that there cannot be gradation among
the same categories of persons and there cannot be any discrimination in fixation of pay of same categories of persons. The categorisation of
Grade -I and Grade - II is nothing but manifestation of the bureaucratic autocracy in order to create a division among the same categories of
persons. As stated herein before there cannot be any reasons and/or ground for categorising the Inspectors into two categories when all
considerations are the same. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Inspectors as Grade I and Grade II is violative of Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it makes a discrimination among the same categories of Inspectors of the Housing Department were
appointed alike on the basis of the same qualification and experience and eligibility and the said Inspectors formed an integrated cadre, no
discrimination could thereafter be made in favour of some Inspectors. It was submitted that this fixation of scale of pay and the gradation among
the same categories of persons is wholly arbitrary and as such perse amounts to denial of protection of law.
12. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners/respondents that all the respondents formed one single integrated category i.e. inspectors of
Housing Department as such the scale of pay of the respondents should be fixed in the scale of Rs. 200-400/- from 1961, Rs. 350-600/- in 1971
and Rs. 425-1050/- from 1981 and non-granting of the said scale of pay is wholly arbitrary. The respondents/writ petitioners submitted that as
Inspectors of Housing Department formed one integrated category there cannot be two scale of pay among the same categories of employees.
13. The writ petitioners/respondents further submitted that the respondents/writ petitioners were represented before the pay Commission set up in
1977 by the Association to which they belong but without any affect.
They demanded justice but justice has not been done.
Under such circumstances, they moved the aforesaid writ petition and succeed therein.
14. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the Housing Department and under its control, there are in all seven posts of Inspectors
and out of the said seven posts the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are Grade -I, Inspectors and they are senior in service to respondents Nos. 3,4,5
and 6 who are Grade II Inspectors of the said Department. Respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 entered into service much later than the respondents
Nos. 1 and 2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are now in the scale of Rs. 380-910/- whereas the scale of respondents No. 3 to 6 who are grade -
II Inspectors, have been placed in the scale of Rs. 340-750/- It has alleged that initially in the Department in the cadre of Inspector there was no
scope for any promotion. In 1965, the authorities by Government Order dated 4.6.1965 as contained in Memo No. 2044 H.K. decided that a
few posts of Grade-I Inspectors would be created for giving promotion on the basis of seniority. It has been submitted that the Grade I and Grade
II Inspectors of the same cadre was made just only to open promotional benefits to the members belonging to the said cadre.
15. It has further been submitted that the recruitment Rules for the posts of the Inspectors were framed in 1988. In the said Rules it has been
provided that the method of recruitment to Inspectors Grade I is by way of promotion from the cadre of Inspectors Grade - II. But the method of
recruitment to the said cadre of Inspector is by way of Selection or by transfer from the cadre of Lower Division Clerk. But the qualification for the
said direct recruitment to the cadre of Inspector is Higher Secondary or its equivalent but for recruitment to the cadre of Inspector by way of
transfer is equivalent to the qualification of a lower Division Clerk. It may be mentioned that Lower Division Clerks did not require Higher
Secondary pass Certificate or its equivalent. Only Graduate in Government service is considered for appointment to the post of Inspector is not the
correct fact. It is further pointed out that the Inspector. Grade - II can also avail themselves of Promotion of the next higher post. It may be pointed
out that Grade - II Inspectors already continue their lien in the post of Lower Division Clerks and accordingly, they get promotion to the Upper
Division Clerks. To be more clear it has been submitted that in the Housing Department Inspectors Grade- II are transferred from Lower Division
Clerks with lien in the said clerical post. Thereafter those Grade- II Inspectors get promotion to the Upper Division Clerks when their turn comes.
This practice has been continuing in the said department for the last more than 20 years.
16. It has also been contended that regarding the nature of job of the Inspectors of both the groups there is nothing peculiar. According to the
appellants the contention of the writ petitioner respondents as made in the writ petition regarding the nature of their job is not correct and the same
has been rather exaggerated. The duties of higher officers in the department have been shown to be discharged by the respondents but this
contention of the respondent is far from the truth. To be more clear the nature of duties of the Inspectors is of general nature. There is nothing
about any technical, legal or any other specified branch of knowledge.
17. It has further been submitted that in the Housing Department the recruitment to the posts of Upper Division Clerk is generally made from the
Lower Division Clerks. The employees get promotion to various channels including Grade - II, Inspectors wherefrom an employee may either be
promoted to Grade-I or to Upper Division Clerk. Thus the weigh (scale) status of Inspector Grade -I and Upper Division Clerk is same. The
claim of the writ petitioners/respondents is that they discharge higher duties, better responsibilities and have got higher qualification than the clerks
though they should be treated as a separate class and they should be given higher monetary benefit by way of higher scale of pay cannot have any
basis. It has further been submitted that the recruitment to the posts of Inspector purely an affair of the regional office of the Housing Department.
Their appointments and thereafter promotion either to the Inspector or to the clerical line is purely a policy of the government and these
qualifications have been brought only just to have better and more classified allotment of duties. This classification as Inspectors from the clerical
staff is only meant for the qualification as well as allotment of duties of the Housing Department. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant
that the claim of the respondents is that they belonged to a higher cadre, consequently they can claim higher scale of pay is not correct.
18. It has also been submitted that impugned judgment and order if given effect to will create serious administrative troubles and there will be
financial burden on the State Government.
19. It appears to that firstly the Government order dated June 4, 1965 by which the Government has created two grades i.e. Inspector Grade-I
and Inspector Grade-II only in so far as the Housing Department is concerned providing two different scales as mentioned above, even though the
qualifications, the nature of duties are same and that there is no basis for making of providing two scales in the facts and circumstances of the case.
20. Secondly, it has been urged that when the Inspectors of other department have been given the pay scale of Rs. 450-1050/- the respondents
should also give that pay scale to the writ petitioners on the principles of equal pay for equal work.
21. It was further submitted by the Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that in the instant case the respondents refused to pay equal pay for
equal work in respect of the Housing Department Inspectors among themselves as well as in comparison with the other Inspector of other
department under the Government of West Bengal. It was submitted by the writ petitioners that the action in this behalf taken by the respondent
State Government, was highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 15 of Constitution. It was further submitted that there
was no rational basis for making classification of Inspectors into two Grades-Grade-1 and Grade-11 ignoring the principle of equal pay scale for
equal work and inspile of the fact that they all perform the same nature of duties and take up similar responsibilities. In this connection reference
was made to the case reported in Budhan Choudhry and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, wherein the Supreme Court held that Article 14 only
forbids class legislations.
It does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible-classification two
conditions must be fulfilled (Twin Test) viz.
(i) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others
left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relations to the object sought to be achieved by the status in question. What is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established
by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of
procedure.
22. Further reference was made from time to time to the case of D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), where the Supreme Court
considered the scope of ""equal pay for equal work"". Supreme Court observed in that case as follows :-
In that case, the writ petitioner before the Supreme Court was a driver cum Constable in the Delhi Police Force and he demanded that his scale of
pay should at least be the same as the scale of pay of other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration. There, the Supreme Court held as
follows:- ""We conclude that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the
pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the
same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different
departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by
them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the
same.
23. ""It is true that the principle of ""equal pay for equal work'' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly
is a Constitutional goal. Art. 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims equal pay of equal work'' for both men and women as a Directive Principle of
State Policy. ''Equal pay for equal work for both men and women'' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the nexus.
Directive principle as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of
interpretation. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the preamble and Articles 39(d), we are of the view that the principle ''Equal pay for
equal work'' is deductible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of in equal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational
classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.
24. The Supreme Court also observed in that case that ""the respondents in their affidavit did not explain how the case of driver in the Police Force
was different from that of the drivers in the other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them.
25. ""In the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court followed the decision of
Ranadhir Singh (Supra) and held that ""equal pay for equal work'' is deductible from Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) and may be property applied to
cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical
work under the same employer. The Supreme Court held in that case there is no attempt was made to sustain the scales of pay of professor on the
doctrine of classification because the classification of existing incumbents as being distinct and separate from newly recruited hands with flimsy
change in essential qualification would be wholly irrational and arbitrary. The Supreme Court, therefore, issued a writ of Mandamus directing the
Government to put the petitioners in the revised scale of pay where all relevant considerations are the same the persons holding identical post and
discharging similar duties cannot be treated differently.
26. Supreme Court observed as follows in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. vs. State of U.P. reported in (1986) S.C.C. 637.
It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Vuvak Kendras knowing fully
well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for
it is an all two familiar argument with the expliting class and a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to
advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of the
people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted
employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other
Class IV employees, cannot provide as escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and should not be permitted to challenge
the validity of the same on the ground of inordinate delay. On this question it was submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the
delay should not debar the petitioner from obtaining any relief when it established that the impugned action violates the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Further, the Affidavit-in-opposition is totally silent on the question why the Inspectors of other
departments have been paid higher scale of pay of Rs. 425-1025/- without giving the same to the Inspectors of the Housing Department.
27. Learned Advocate for the State Government stated that the Inspectors of the Housing Department are performing the same duty as that of
Clerks. We have considered the records and it appears to us that the Inspector cannot be equated with the Clerks and, as such the contention of
the appellants they cannot get same pay as that of the Inspector of other departments can not be accepted. It appears from the proposed
amendment to the recruitment Rules for the posts of Inspector on 6th August, 1986 that the Inspector Grade -I to be appointed by promotion
from the cadre of Inspector Grade- II is to be appointed by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority from the cadre of Lower Division Clerks
of the respective district/house building loan office having at least five years experience in departmental work, and they should have as minimum
qualification a degree of an Indian University in the event of direct recruitment by selection. A xerox copy of the letter addressed from the Deputy
Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, the Secretary, Public Service Commission regarding proposed recruitment rules have been
produced in court. The same proposed rules were subsequently incorporated and accepted by the Government. The said rules are set out herein
below :-
''A'' Inspector Gr. I by promotion from the cadre of Inspector, Gr. II ''B'' Inspector G. II (i) By selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority from
the cadre of Lower Division Clerks of the respective district/house building loan office having at least live years experience in departmental work.
(ii) By direct recruitment through selection :
a) Qualification : A degree of an Indian University.
b) Age: Not more than 35 years on the first day of January of the year of recruitment.
28. That apart, it does not appear to us that there is any scope for promotion from the post of Inspector Grade-I whereas from the Upper Division
Assistants there are promotions to the post of Section Officer etc. Under such circumstances, the contention of the Learned Advocate for the State
Government that the post of Inspector Grade-I is identical with that of grade of Upper Division Assistants can not have any basis. Their duties are
different from that of Clerks. They are discharging duties and functions similar in nature to Inspector of other departments.
29. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.
I agree.
