Pay classification for trained and untrained teachers upheld; special pay schedule prevails over the general increment rule.

Pay differentiation between trained and untrained teachers was upheld because training was treated as a relevant educational qualification and an intelligible basis for separate treatment; the doctrine of equal pay for equal work did not invalidate the classification. The special Schedule in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 was held to prevail over the general increment rule in Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951, because the specific provision governing untrained teachers controlled any inconsistency with the general rule. The challenge to the pay fixation was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the distinction in pay between trained and untrained teachers, with a fixed initial pay for untrained teachers, was invalid on the ground of discrimination or breach of equal pay for equal work; (ii) Whether the special Schedule in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 prevailed over the general increment rule in Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Services Rules 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the distinction in pay between trained and untrained teachers, with a fixed initial pay for untrained teachers, was invalid on the ground of discrimination or breach of equal pay for equal work.

Analysis: The Court held that differences in educational qualifications can legitimately justify different pay scales where the higher qualification is relevant to better performance of duty. Training was treated as a material and relevant qualification for teachers, and the classification between trained and untrained teachers was found to be based on an intelligible and valid distinction. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work was therefore not attracted to invalidate the rule.

Conclusion: The distinction in pay between trained and untrained teachers was upheld as valid and was not discriminatory.

Issue (ii): Whether the special Schedule in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 prevailed over the general increment rule in Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Services Rules 1951.

Analysis: The Court applied the rule of harmonious construction and the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Rule 29 was treated as a general provision dealing with increments, whereas the Schedule in the 1969 Rules specifically governed untrained teachers and fixed their pay until training was completed. The special provision was held to control the general rule to the extent of any inconsistency.

Conclusion: The special Schedule prevailed over Rule 29, and the fixed pay provision was enforceable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the challenge to the pay fixation was rejected; the State's appeal succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification in pay based on relevant educational qualification is constitutionally permissible, and a special statutory provision governing a specific class will prevail over a general rule inconsistent with it.

---