JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam along with Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare (H&FW) Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5, Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, AG(A&E) Assam and Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioners in the present writ petition have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for enhancement of their grade pay to Rs. 3300/- (Three Thousand Three Hundred) by maintaining parity with the grade pay authorized to the respondent No. 6, who is also working in a post similar to one held by the petitioners, herein, in Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, Jorhat. 3. The facts in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under:- The Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of the Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, had issued an advertisement dated 12-04-2010 for recruitment, amongst others, against the post of Modeler-4 in the Anatomy Department, having creation No. 120. 05 (five) posts of Modeler-4, was put up for recruitment vide the said advertisement. The said advertisement mandated a candidate desirous for recruitment as Modeler-4, to have a qualification of HSSLC pass with Diploma in preparation of medical/ embryology models from a recognized Medical Institute or experience of preparation of medical models for a Medical College or Diploma or Degree in Fine Arts from a Government Institution, with 02 years experience in Sculpture or preparation of models in plastic, POP and fibre glass etc. The petitioners along with the respondent No. 6 submitted their respective applications and their applications having been found to be satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in the said advertisement, they are allowed to participate in the selection process. The petitioners along with respondent No. 6, on merits were placed in the select list for appointment against the post of Modeler-4, as advertised vide the advertisement dated 12-04-2010. On their such selection, the petitioners along with respondent No. 6, were appointed vide issuance of individual orders of appointment, all dated 01-12-2010. The petitioners as well as the respondent No. 6, were on their such appointments authorized a scale of pay of Rs. 3010/- to Rs. 6075/-, (pre-revised scale). On their such selection, the petitioners along with respondent No. 6, were appointed vide issuance of individual orders of appointment, all dated 01-12-2010. The petitioners as well as the respondent No. 6, were on their such appointments authorized a scale of pay of Rs. 3010/- to Rs. 6075/-, (pre-revised scale). It is projected that while the petitioners do not have a degree qualification in Fine Arts, the respondent No. 6 was a holder of a degree in Fine Arts. Thereafter, on the implementation of the Revision of Pay (RoP) Rules. 2010, the petitioners were authorized their pay in pay band- 2 with a grade pay of Rs. 2100/- (Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred). However, following the prescription made in this connection by the Pay Commission, the respondent No. 6, while being authorized his pay in pay band-2 was authorized a grade pay of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). Subsequently, the grade pay of Rs. 2100/- as authorized to the petitioners in pursuance to the acceptance of the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee was enhanced to Rs. 2400/-. The grade pay authorized to the respondent No. 6 was enhanced to Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand). The petitioners had approached the respondent authorities praying for maintaining parity of pay with that of the respondent No. 6, who was also appointed as Modeler-4, in pursuance to the same recruitment process from, wherein, the petitioners were so appointed. The prayers made by the petitioners not being responded to by the respondent authorities, they have instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 6, discharge same nature of duties and also shouldered same responsibilities and accordingly, only on the basis of the fact that the respondent No. 6, had a degree qualification in Fine Arts, he would not be entitled to be authorized a higher scale of pay. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that in the advertisement dated 12-04-2010, the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of Modeler-4 was mentioned as HSSLC pass with Diploma in preparation of medical/ embryology models from a recognized Medical Institute. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that in the advertisement dated 12-04-2010, the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of Modeler-4 was mentioned as HSSLC pass with Diploma in preparation of medical/ embryology models from a recognized Medical Institute. He submits that the petitioners having possessed the said minimum qualification as prescribed, considering the fact that the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 6, discharged similar nature of duties, the grade pay of the respondent No. 6, if to be enhanced, such enhancement was also required to be extended to the petitioners, herein, also. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a communication dated 13-01-2015, issued by the Director of Medical Education, Assam, wherein, it was highlighted that the work and function of an Artist, Modeler and Artist/ Projectionist are the same but Photographer was different. It was further highlighted in the said communication that the posts were created in different pay scales of the categories, perhaps, through oversight or without properly examining their duties and responsibilities at the time of creation. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondent authorities having also appreciated the discrimination existing in respect of the persons like the petitioners, holding the post of Modeler-4, such disparity would be required to be removed. Accordingly, he submits that in the light of the fact that the petitioners and the respondent No. 6, discharge similar nature of duties and shoulder similar responsibilities, the grade pay of the petitioners would also be mandated to be enhanced to that as received by the respondent No. 6, w.e.f. the date the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, was so implemented. 6. Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State respondents, submits that from the Revision of Pay Rules, formulated by the respondent authorities, basing on the recommendation made for various posts under the Government of Assam, by the Pay Commissions constituted from time to time, it is seen that for the post of Modeler-4, two pay scales came to be prescribed basing on the qualification of the persons holding the said post. It is submitted that under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1990, the pay of the post of Modeler-4 in respect of person appointed against the said post basing on a Matriculate qualification was Rs. 1125/- - Rs. It is submitted that under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1990, the pay of the post of Modeler-4 in respect of person appointed against the said post basing on a Matriculate qualification was Rs. 1125/- - Rs. 2215/-, whereas for the holders of Diploma it was prescribed as Rs. 1285/- – Rs. 3075/-. He submits that even under the provision of Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998, Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 and the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, two scales of pay continued to be prescribed, basing on the qualification of the incumbent in the post of Modeler-4. He submits that the petitioners not possessing a Diploma or a Degree qualification in Fine Arts, they were given the non- diploma scale of pay. He submits that the respondent No. 6, admittedly being a degree holder in Fine Arts, was authorized the higher pay scale basing on his educational qualification. Mr. Gogoi submits that the two pay scales as prescribed for the post of Modeler-4, was so prescribed basing on the corresponding recommendations of the Pay Commissions, set up from time to time. He submits that the Pay Commissions having examined the nature of duties required to be discharged by incumbents in various posts, including the post of Modeler-4 and thereafter, having prescribed two scales of pay for the post, basing on the criteria of qualification, he submits that such prescription of two pay scales must be so deemed to have been made by the Pay Commissions by appreciating the nexus existing between the higher qualification prescribed and the works required to be discharged by incumbents in the post of Modeler-4. Accordingly, he submits that it being permissible for the respondent authorities to prescribe two pay scales for a particular post and such scales of pay being also permissible to be so fixed basing on the qualification possessed by the incumbents in the post in question, higher grade pay authorized to the respondent No. 6, herein, would not be permissible to be so extended to the petitioners, herein, inasmuch as, they do not possess higher educational qualification, as possessed by the respondent No. 6. 7. In support of his such submissions, Mr. Gogoi has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhattisgarh Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 7. In support of his such submissions, Mr. Gogoi has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhattisgarh Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 646 and State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 301 . 8. Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. In the advertisement dated 12-04-2010, by which the posts of Modeler-4 were put up for recruitment, there is only one scale of pay mentioned, i.e. the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 3010/- – Rs. 6075/-. It is further seen that while the petitioners and the respondent No. 6, on their selection, were appointed as Modeler-4, they were all authorized the pay scale of Rs. 3010/- – Rs. 6075/-. Thereafter, on the implementation of the provisions of Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 the pay of the petitioners were fixed in the revised scale of pay and subsequent to the acceptance of the report of the Anomaly Committee, the Grade Pay authorized to the petitioners was enhanced to Rs. 2400/-. At the same time, the Grade Pay authorized to the respondent No. 6 was enhanced to Rs. 3000/-. It is seen that although initially the respondent No. 6, who had a degree qualification in Fine Arts was not authorized the higher scale of pay as prescribed for diploma holders in the post of Modeler-4, subsequently the enhanced scale of pay was authorized by the Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department to the respondent No. 6, vide communication dated 25-11-2011. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that they also being engaged as Modeler-4, they would also be entitled to draw the higher grade pay by maintaining parity with that of the grade pay authorized to the respondent No. 6. 11. It is settled position of law that it is permissible for two scales of pay being prescribed for the same post basing on the educational qualification possessed by the incumbents in the post in question. 11. It is settled position of law that it is permissible for two scales of pay being prescribed for the same post basing on the educational qualification possessed by the incumbents in the post in question. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore Vs. P. Narasinga Rao, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 103 , had held that a classification based on educational qualification to be sustainable, provided that such classification is based on an intelligible differentia. In this connection the Hon’ble Court had drawn the following conclusions:- "It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated, Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such. Hence, there is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured; Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection." 12. The said decision in the case of P. Narasinga Rao (Supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. AIIMS , (1989) 2 SCC 235 . The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the said decision is extracted, here-in-below:- "5. The said decision in the case of P. Narasinga Rao (Supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. AIIMS , (1989) 2 SCC 235 . The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the said decision is extracted, here-in-below:- "5. While considering the question of application of principle of 'equal pay for equal work’ it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality" 13. Following the said decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that amongst the employees performing similar duties and functions and their posts being inter-changeable, a valid classification still would be permissible to be made with regard to authorization of pay, on the basis of their educational qualification. However, what is to be noticed, herein, is that such classification basing on educational qualification, would be permissible if such classification has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, as well as efficiency in administration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no difference between the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 6. Accordingly, it was contended that the classification made has got no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been examined by this Court and this Court finds that 02 (two) scale of pay for the post of Modeler-4 came to be prescribed, since the introduction of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1990 and the same was continued with thereafter in all the Revision of Pay Rules formulated, including the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017. Such authorization was made through the Revision of Pay Rules, basing on the recommendations made in this connection by the constituted Pay Commissions and all along two pay scales basing on the qualification of the incumbent in the post of Modeler- 4, has been prescribed and continued with. Such prescription made in the Revision of Pay Rules as noticed, hereinabove, being so made on the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, which is a body consisting of experts, who proceeds to make such recommendation after full study and analysis of the nature of works attached to a post, under consideration, would lead to a presumption that the prescription of 02 (two) scales of pay for the post of Modeler-4, was so made consciously after arriving at a conclusion that the higher qualification so prescribed had a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Such recommendation of the Pay Commissions would not mandate interference from this Court, except for strong reasons projected by the petitioners, which would indicate that the classification made to be unreasonable. This Court having not found any reason advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to disturb the recommendations of the Pay Commissions constituted over the period of time, this Court is of the considered view that the grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 6, basing on his higher educational qualification would not mandate interference from this Court. The petitioners in the present proceeding have also not assailed the prescription of 02 (two) scales of pay for the post of Modeler-4. The classification made is also found to be a reasonable one. Further, the said higher pay scale being authorized to the respondent No. 6, on the basis of the higher qualification possessed by him, the said qualification not being found to be possessed by the petitioners , the same would also not be mandated to be directed to be extended to the petitioners, herein. 14. In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.