Article 14 Does Not Envisage Equal Treatment For Unequals: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eligibility Criteria For Govt School Principals

The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean giving equal treatment or equal protection of the law to persons who are unequals and that its violation would entail giving iniquitous treatment to persons falling within the same bracket despite their homogeneous characteristics.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea seeking cancellation of amendments made to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for appointment to the Posts of Headmaster/Headmistress in Secondary or Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools) Rules, 2016 as notified on March 24, 2017 and all subsequent Notifications issued thereafter to the extent of imposing enhanced qualifications for selection of Headmasters/Headmistresses in Secondary, Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools.

The petitioners who are Assistant Teachers of High Schools in the State contended that the impugned notification violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it enhances the qualification for selection to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress from 45% to 50% in academic and professional qualifications. 

Pursuant to the rival submissions, Justice Bhattacharya underscored that if Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 16 (equal opportunity in matters of public employment)  are to be given a meaningful and mutually-purposive interpretation, the object would be to uphold and preserve equitable distribution of opportunities within a class of persons marked by well-defined characteristics. It was further stated that such an object cannot be to treat persons across all spectrums as equals but to first segregate the spectrums according to the special features of each and ensure that persons within these individual groups are not treated discriminated against.

"A complaint of violation of the guarantee of equality can be taken to its equitable conclusion provided there is iniquitous treatment of persons falling within the same bracket despite their homogeneous characteristics. A classification based on grouping of persons based on similar and identifiable markers will withstand judicial scrutiny if the class of persons are distinct and different from those excluded from the class. The differential attributes of those within and those outside must be clear so as to demolish any charge of unequal treatment of persons within and outside the group", the Court enumerated. 

Addressing the contention of the petitioners, the Court opined that the argument that the Headmasters/Headmistresses are not being subjected to the qualifying percentage of 50% which has been brought about by the impugned Notification is fallacious. It was noted that there is no natural or automatic progression/promotion from the post of Assistant Teachers to Headmasters and that an Assistant Teacher would have to put himself/herself through a selection process for qualifying to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress which shows that the two positions are therefore conceptually and functionally different.

Moreover, it was observed that since the impugned Notification is prospective in nature, there can be no scope of a person who is presently holding the post of a Headmaster/Headmistress being subjected to the eligibility criterion of 50% marks in Master's Degree from a recognized University at the post-graduate level.

 Justice Bhattacharya further averred that the two classes of teachers i.e. teachers appointed by the School Service Commission and those by the Public Service Commission are distinct and disparate from each other since the mode and manner of selection as well as appointing authorities are wholly different. Thus, the petitioners cannot complain of unequal treatment between these two groups of teachers since the two classes are based on well-defined characteristics and are distinct from each other.

Enumerating further upon what constitutes 'reasonable classification' under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court underscored, 

"The safeguard in Article 14 of the Constitution is to prevent discriminatory treatment of persons who claim to be equals; the right does not mean giving equal treatment or equal protection of the law to persons who are unequals and would hence require differential treatment for preserving their unique and individual characteristics. The image which comes to mind is of 3 persons of unequal height being given 3 ladders to see beyond a wall; the idea is not to give 3 equal-sized ladders to the 3 persons but giving the tallest ladder to the shortest person and the shortest ladder to the tallest person so that all 3 can look beyond the wall (wishfully at a brighter and more equal future)."

The Court thus held that the impugned Notification has a rationale and a most credible nexus with the object of upgrading the standard of teachers who are to be recruited as Headmasters/Headmistresses and that requiring a higher academic classification for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress cannot be said to be violative either in logic or in practice.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the constitutionality validity of the impugned notification by observing, 

"It should also be recognized that the benchmark required for recruitment to certain posts, particularly of teachers including Headmasters, has to be raised from time to time in sync with the evolving academic performance indicators in the State. Eligibility criteria cannot remain frozen or static for all times to come. A timely step for an upward revision can never be taken if a spanner is thrown every time the State seeks to change the benchmark eligibility criteria for recruitment to certain posts, particularly in schools and colleges."

Case Title: Pranati Aguan v. State of West Bengal and Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 245

Click Here To Read/Download Order