Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5152 of 2006
PETITIONER:
The Deputy Director of Public Instruction And District Recruitment Authority & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Shaik Moula & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23576 of 2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing writ
petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High
Court was to the order passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal (in short the ’Tribunal’).
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
Respondent no.1 filed an application before the Tribunal
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 (in
short the ’Act’) praying to quash the selection made by the
appellants and for a direction to include his name for selection
under category IIB (reserved category) and to issue order of
appointment as primary school teacher in the Hindi subject.
The applicant-respondent no.1 herein had filed an application
for appointment as primary school Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in
Bangalore Rural District. The same was rejected on the ground
that he did not possess the requisite qualification. It was
pointed out that the requisite qualifications as indicated in the
Notification No.C1.Pra.Sha.Shi.Ne/01/2001-02 dated
8.9.2001 are as follows:
"1. Must have passed PUC and TCH or equivalent
examinations
* But the candidates who had taken admission to TCH
course prior to 1989 will be eligible if they have passed
SSLC and TCH or equivalent examination".
According to the appellants, the respondent no.1 did not
have the qualification of TCH. He had passed the examination
which is equivalent to Teacher Training Certificate (TTC). The
Tribunal held that the respondent no.1 possessed the requisite
qualification. For that purpose reliance was placed on
proceedings of the Government of Karnataka (Order No.EF.43
PHN 72 Bangalore, Dated: the 24/26th August, 1974).
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Challenging order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was
filed before the High Court reiterating the stand that the
qualification possessed by the respondent no.1 was not
equivalent to TCH but was equivalent to TTC. The plea was
rejected holding that bare reading of the Government’s order
dated 24/26th August, 1974 indicated that the qualification
possessed by the respondent no.1 was equivalent to TCH.
Leaned counsel for the appellants submitted that both
the Tribunal and the High Court fell into grave error in coming
to the conclusion that the qualification possessed was
equivalent to TCH with reference to the Government’s order
dated 24/26th August, 1974. In that order there is no
indication even in the manner as decided by the Tribunal or
the High Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that bare reading of the aforesaid order makes the
position clear that the courses indicated in the Government
order had to be treated as equivalent courses for the purpose
of teaching Hindi in high school or secondary school and
training institutions. That being so, the qualification was
applicable for the purpose of appointment to the primary
school.
It is to be noted that the Tribunal was really confused as
to what was the subject matter of dispute. It is clear from the
following observation of the Tribunal:
"Undisputedly, the documents produced
by the applicant demonstrate that he has
passed SSLC in the year 1990 (Annexure \026 A2,
is the Marks Card), PUC in the year 1993
(Annexure \026 ’A4’ is the Marks Card) and Hindi
Uttama of Mysore Hindi Prachar Parishad
(Annexure \026 ’A4’ is the Certificate). The
applicant has not passed TCH. But his case is
that a pass in Hindi Shikshana Praveen
Pariksha of Kendriya Hindi Shikshana Mandal
Agra is recognized by the Government of
Karnataka as equivalent to TCH and as such
the applicant satisfies the requirements of
education qualification. In the circumstances
the only question is whether Hindi Shikshana
Praveen Pariksha passed by the applicant is
equivalent to Teachers Training Certificate?"
(underlined for emphasis)
The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the
Government’s order dated 24/26th August, 1974 made the
position clear that the qualification possessed by respondent
no.1 was equivalent to TCH. There is really no such indication.
Whether a particular qualification is equivalent to another has
to be specifically indicated. That has not been done.
Inferential conclusion, that too without appreciating the
nature of the controversy, makes decisions of the Tribunal and
the High Court vulnerable. They are accordingly set aside.
The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.