2026:JHHC:11182 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4096 of 2022 ….….. Ashok Kumar Yadav, aged about 61 years (Retired Trained Physical Teacher from S.P. College, Dumka), Son of Late Rampal Yadav, Resident of Mohalla-Lohiya Nagar, Near Hanumant Akhara, P.O. + P.S. and District—Godda, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka through its Vice Chancellor, P.O. and P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka. 2. The Registrar, Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, P.O.+P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka. 3. The Principal, S.P. College, Dumka, P.O. + P.S.- Dumka, District-Dumka. 4. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary -cum- Commissioner, Primary, Secondary and Higher Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 6. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Prasad Ram, Advocate For the Resp.-State (s): Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-I : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Adv ….….. C.A.V. ON 10/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:16/04/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:11182 2 (i) Rule NISI, for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.12.2004 passed under the memo No.1483 by the respondent No.4 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for payment of pay scale of Rs.2200- Rs.4,000 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualification as fixed by the University Grant Commission (UGC) which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and also visits the petitioner with civil consequences. (ii) Rule NISI, for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated vide 12.06.2010 Patrank No.5/B3-45/2010/705 (Annexure- 17) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's pay scale has not been fixed on the basis of D.P.Ed./B.P.Ed. trained teacher in purview of U.G.C. guideline. (iii) For quashing of the order dated 25.08.2011 vide Memo No.907 passed by the respondent No.5 (Annexure-14) whereby and whereunder it is held that as per requisite qualification fixed by the U.G.C. does not fulfil by the petitioner as because he has got his D.P.Ed. degree on the basis of Matric Certificate whereas the petitioner got his D.P.Ed. degree on the basis of Graduation level so the said order is totally illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 (1g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. (iv) The petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ or writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents No.2, 4 2026:JHHC:11182 3 and 5 to immediately and forthwith rescind, recall, cancel the order dated 24.12.2004, 12.06.2010 and 25.08.2011 passed under Memo No.1483, 705 and 907 respectively and direct the respondents to fix the petitioner's salary Rs.2200-4000 from the date of i.e. 09.08.2000 when he obtained D.P.Ed. degree in view of 4th pay revision committee and in the revised pay scale by the 5th revision committee, 6th revision committee and 7th revision committee. Thereafter, fix the pension of the petitioner and to pay all arrears/differences of salary along with interest @ 12% per annum and cost which may be quantified by this Hon'ble Court for causing acute mental agony and financial hardship. Further for a direction to the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 to fix the petitioner's U.G.C. pay scale as per recommendation 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission and on that basis fix pension also. 3. The case of the petitioner as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Instructor at A. S. College, Deoghar by the Governing Body on 07.11.1980 while he was matric untrained. Subsequently the petitioner superannuated from S. P. College, Dumka under the Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka as Physical Training Instructor on 31.12.2021. The further case of the petitioner is that while being in service petitioner obtained Intermediate from Mandar Vidyapith and Sahitya Alankar which is equivalent to B.A from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in the year 1993 after obtaining permission from the said college. 2026:JHHC:11182 4 Thereafter, the petitioner again took permission from the concerned and took admission in D.P.Ed (Diploma in Phyisical Education) course in the session 1995-96 at Govt. College of Health and Physical Education, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, Bihar. The petitioner successfully passed D.P.Ed (Diploma in Phyisical Education) examination, however, due to late session the petitioner was granted the marks sheet in August. 2000 (Annexure-4 series). 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education) issued a circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 (Annexure-5) whose Appendix-II provided that the Director / Instructor of Physical Education (Universities / Colleges) must possess the minimum qualification of a Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education. The Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar on the basis of said Appendix-II of the aforesaid circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 issued letter no. 454 dated 29.05.1992 (Annexure-6) directing the Registrars of different Universities to act accordingly. Pursuant to such direction, one B.R.A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur vide office order dated 16.05.1996 (Annexure-7) fixed the pay scale of seven (07) P.T.I including one Indra Bhushan Singh who was having the qualification of B.A, D.P.Ed. 2026:JHHC:11182 5 5. Being emboldened by said pay fixation, the petitioner who was also having the qualification of B. A, D.P.Ed submitted a representation before the Registrar, S. K. M. University, Dumka on 01.06.2000 praying for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000. However, when no decision was taken on his representation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P (S) no. 3607 / 2002 which was disposed vide order dated 29.06.2004 (Annexure-11) with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, who in turn was directed to determine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a stipulated period. 6. In compliance of the order dated 29.06.2004 passed in W.P (S) no. 3607 / 2002, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide reasoned order bearing memo no.1483 dated 24.02.2004 (Annexure-12). 7. Upon rejection of the representation vide said reasoned order bearing memo no.1483 dated 24.02.2004, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P (S) 7037/2006. Vide order dated 30.03.2011 passed in W.P (S) 7037/2006 (Annexure-13), the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner within two months and pass a suitable speaking order and bring the same on record. In compliance of 2026:JHHC:11182 6 the order dated 30.03.2011 passed in W.P (S) 7037/2006, the case of the petitioner was again considered and was rejected vide order bearing memo no. 907 dated 25.08.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand (Annexure-14). Subsequently, W.P (S) 7037/2006 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.06.2012 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition challenging the said order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure-15). 8. Afterward, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P (S) 4088 / 2012 which was withdrawn and disposed vide order dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure-16) reserving the liberty to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law in connection with letter no. 705 dated 12.06.2010 whereby the pay of the petitioner and others was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the case in hand claiming relief as quoted hereinabove. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contented and urged that the petitioner by the virtue of holding the qualification of B.A, D.P.Ed. is entitled to the scale of Rs.2200-Rs.4000 under revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 under 4th pay revision commission and replacement scale under the subsequent pay revisions i.e. 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision commission. 2026:JHHC:11182 7 10. Ld. Sr. Counsel further raised the ground of parity/equality and submitted that the petitioner deserves similar treatment as given to one Indra Bhushan Singh of B.R.A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur who was granted pay-scale of Rs.2200-Rs.4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on having the qualification of B.A, D.P.Ed. vide office order dated 16.05.1996 (Annexure-7). He had further submitted that the impugned orders and pay revision w.r.t. the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the case in hand. 11. Per-contra the Respondent State has filed counter affidavit stating that as per Resolution no. 396 dated 25.04.2006, a P.T.I holding the qualification of Graduation and Diploma in Physical Education is entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2750 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Thus, the pay scale of Rs. 1500- 2750 is admissible to the petitioner who is graduate with diploma in physical education. It has further been stated that the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 in the 4th Revised Pay scale is not admissible to the petitioner as the said pay scale is of the Lecturer. It has also been stated that the pay fixation of the petitioner has been done vide letter no. 705 dated 12.06.2010. 2026:JHHC:11182 8 12. The Respondent University did not file counter affidavit, however has relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State of Jharkhand. 13. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this court finds that that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Instructor by the Governing Body of A. S. College, Deoghar on 07.11.1980 while he was matric untrained. Further, while being in service the petitioner did Intermediate from Mandar Vidyapith and Sahitya Alankar which is equivalent to B.A from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in the year 1993 after obtaining permission from the said college. 14. Subsequently, after obtaining permission the petitioner took admission in D.P.Ed (Diploma in Phyisical Education) course for the session 1995-96 at Govt. College of Health and Physical Education, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, Bihar. However, due to late session the petitioner passed D.P.Ed. (Diploma in Phyisical Education) examination in August. 2000. 15. It further transpires from record that the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), Govt. of India, issued a circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 (Annexure-5) whose Appendix-II provided that the Director / Instructor of Physical Education (Universities/Colleges) must possess the minimum qualification 2026:JHHC:11182 9 of a Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education. Thereafter, the Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar on the basis of the Appendix-II of the aforesaid circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982, directed the Registrars of different Universities vide letter no. 454 dated 29.05.1992 (Annexure-6), that the U.G.C revised pay scale will be provided only to those Librarian / Assistant Librarian / Physical Education Instructors who fulfils the educational and other criteria as provided under Appendix- II of the said circular the Govt. of India. 16. Pursuant to such direction by the State of Bihar, one B.R.A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur vide office order dated 16.05.1996 (Annexure-7), fixed the pay scale of seven (07) P.T.I in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000, including one Indra Bhushan Singh despite the fact that he was having the qualification of B.A, D.P.Ed. which is certainly not at par with the qualification of a Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education as provided under Appendix-II to the circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 (Annexure- 5), issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), Govt. of India. 17. Ld. Sr. Counsel during the course of argument relied upon para-14 of the Writ Petition and claimed parity / equality 2026:JHHC:11182 10 with the said Indra Bhushan Singh who despite having the qualification of B.A, D.P.Ed. similar to that of the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 but the same was denied to the petitioner. 18. From bare perusal of the Appendix-II of the circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), Govt. of India it is evident that the Director / Instructor of Physical Education (Universities / Colleges) must possess the minimum qualification of a Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education. Subsequently, on the basis of the Appendix-II of the aforesaid circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 the Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar issued the letter no. 454 dated 29.05.1992 (Annexure-6), directing the Registrar of different Universities that the U.G.C revised pay scale will be provided only to those Librarian / Assistant Librarian / Physical Education Instructors who fulfils the educational and other criteria as provided under Appendix- II of the said circular issued by the Govt. of India. 19. This Court finds that the petitioner who holds the qualification of B.A,.D.P.Ed is not at par with the minimum qualification i.e. Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education for the purpose of being granted 2026:JHHC:11182 11 the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 under 4th U.G.C Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as provided in the letter no. 454 dated 29.05.1992 (Annexure-6), issued on the basis of Appendix-II of the circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 (Annexure-5) issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), Govt. of India. 20. This court further finds that the said Indra Bhushan Singh of B.R.A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur who was having the qualification of B.A, D.P.Ed was not at par with the requisite qualification as provided under Appendix-II of the circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), Govt. of India which provides that Director / Instructor of Physical Education (Universities / Colleges) must possess the minimum qualification of a Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education. Thus, the grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 under 4th U.G.C Pay Revision to Indra Bhushan Singh was wrongly / erroneously given as the same is contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances. 21. Now the question arises whether the petitioner can be granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 under 4th U.G.C Pay Revision in view of the fact that the same was granted to the said Indra Bhushan Singh holding the similar qualification of 2026:JHHC:11182 12 B.A, D.P.Ed. even though the same is not at par with the qualification as laid down by the letter no. 454 dated 29.05.1992 (Annexure-6), whereby the Registrar of different Universities was directed that the U.G.C revised pay scale will be provided only to those Librarian / Assistant Librarian / Physical Education Instructors who fulfils the educational and other criteria as provided under Appendix-II of the circular bearing no. F, 2-1/82-UI dated 15.12.1982 (Annexure-5) issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), Govt. of India. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to look into the concept of equality before Law. 22. The concept of equality before Law has been dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para-26 and 27 of the Judgment passed in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Debasish Mukherjee and Others reported in [(2011) 14 SCC 187] which is being quoted hereunder: 26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others. 27. This question was exhaustively considered in Chandigarh Administration vs. Jagjit Singh - 1995 (1) SCC 745, wherein this Court explained the legal position thus : "8. …………..The basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is 2026:JHHC:11182 13 unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law." Emphasis Supplied On this issue, it would also be profitable to refer to para-8 from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any 2026:JHHC:11182 14 particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision…….. Emphasis Supplied 23. Having regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the given facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 under 4th U.G.C Pay Revision on the ground of parity / equality with the said Indra Bhushan Singh, who was wrongly / erroneously granted the same pay-scale despite the fact that he was not holding the requisite qualification i.e. Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a degree in Physical Education as provided in the letter no. 454 dated 29.05.1992 issued by the Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar on the basis of the said circular issued by the Govt. of India. 24. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, this court holds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and pay fixation with respect to the petitioner and accordingly the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, are also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:16/04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 20.04.2026