Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
B. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DISTT. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
MOHAN, S. (J)
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 2003 1992 SCR (3) 782
1992 SCC (4) 8 JT 1992 (4) 494
1992 SCALE (2)182
ACT:
Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary
Educational Service:
Service Law-Experience-Teacher-Appointment as Telugu
Pandit-Claim for the post of Head Master-Qualifications-
Experience of ten years as B.T. Assistant or Language Pandit
after obtaining teaching degree required-Decisions of High
Court equating experience of Language Pandit with that of a
trained Graduate-Held period of appointment as Telugu Pandit
shall be counted for reckoning total experience.
Precedent-Need to follow.
HEADNOTE:
Under Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary
Educational Service, the minimum qualifications fixed for
the post of Head Master is ten years experience as B.T.
Assistant or Language Pandit after obtaining a teaching
degree. The appellant- teacher working as a Telugu Pandit
since 1975 obtained his degree of Master of Arts in Telugu
in 1978 and Bachelor of Education in 1983. His claim to the
post of Head Master which fell vacant in 1986 was rejected
departmentally as well as by a Single Judge and on appeal by
a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on the ground that
he was not qualified for such appointment because having
obtained his B.ED. degree in 1983 his experience was only
about three years when the post of Head Master fell vacant.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of
the appellant that in view of the earlier decisions of the
High Court, the experience of a Language Pandit has to be
equated with that of a trained Graduate.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgments of
the High Court, this Court,
HELD: The earlier judgments of the High Court
interpreting the rule in favour of Language Pandits
prevailed in the State for a consider-
783
ably long period. The said principle has become settled and
must have been applied in the other schools of the State.
Therefore, the High Court, should not have departed from the
settled position and should have followed the earlier
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
decisions. Accordingly, the appellant must be treated to be
fully qualifies for the post of the Head Master and his case
should be considered for appointment. [784F-G, 785-D]
P. Subbannan v. The Director of School Education and
Anr., : Writ Petition No. 4470 of 1982 decided on 21.2.1983;
P.S. Chandrasekhar v. The Director of School Education,
Madras and Ors., Writ Petition No. 7367 of 1983 decided on
18.10.1985, approved.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2944 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.91 of the Madras
High Court in W.A. 737/91.
V. Krishnamurthy and V. Balachandra for the Appellant.
S. Balakrishnan, R.N. Keshwani and R. Mohan for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHARMA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Special leave is granted.
2. The appellant is a school teacher claiming
appointment as Head Master. He has been working as a Telugu
Pandit since 1975 in the School concerned. He got the
degrees of Master of Arts in Telugu in 1978 and Bachelor of
Education in 1983. The post of Head Master fell vacant on
1.11.1986. According to the impugned judgment of the
learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, he has been
held to be ineligible for the post. The decision was
confirmed on appeal by a short order by a Division Bench
which is under challenge in the present appeal.
3. The main ground for holding that the appellant was
not qualified for the post of Head Master in 1986 is based
upon the minimum qualification fixed in this regard by the
Special Rules For the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary
Educational Service in its annexure by requiring the
candidate to have:-
784
"(iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten
years as B.T. Assistant or Pandit in a Secondary
School/Training School/Higher Secondary School,
after obtaining a teaching degree, recognised by
the Director of School Education."
According to the respondents, the above condition
requires to have ten years experience as a Pandit, after
obtaining a teaching degree, recognised by the Director of
School Education. It is said that since the appellant
acquired the degree only in 1983, his experience in 1986 was
of about three years. The plea of the appellant that this
period has to be calculated from 1975 when he was appointed
as Telugu Pandit has been rejected departmentally as well as
by the High Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended
that in view of several other provisions in the Rules as
also Instructions issued by the State, the experience of a
Language Pandit has to be equated with that of a trained
graduate and on this basis, at least two judgments were
delivered by the Madras High Court in P. Subbannan v. The
Director of School education and another: Writ Petition No.
4470 of 1982 dated 21.2.1983, and in P.S. Chandrasekhar v.
The Director of School Education, Madras-6 and others: Writ
Petition No. 7367 of 1983 dated 18.10.1985. We have
examined the judgment in P.Subbannan’s case the High Court
had to deal with the claim of Tamil Pandit and in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Chandrasekhar’s case that of a Hindi Pandit, but since the
same considerations arise in regard to any language Pandit
the decisions are certainly in favour of the appellant. A
writ appeal was filed against the judgment in P. Subbannan’s
case, which along with another writ appeal was withdrawn by
the State as is evident by the order of the Division Bench
in writ appeals Nos. 950 and 951 of 1983 vide Annexure - J.
The learned counsel is, therefore, right in contending that
the two judgments interpreting the rule in favour of
Language Pandit prevailed in the State for a considerably
long period. It should further be presumed that the said
principle has become settled and must have been applied in
the other schools of the State. In view of his
consideration, we hold that the High Court, in the present
case, should not have departed from the settled position and
should have followed the two decisions mentioned above.
5. The learned single Judge has also mentioned another
ground for rejecting the appellant’s case. It has been held
that for the promotion to
785
the post of Head Master it was necessary that the claimant
had passed Accounts Test, and since the appellant was
lacking in this qualification he was not eligible. The
learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to
the G.O.Ms. No. 720 dated 28.4.1981 showing that this
qualification was not to be insisted upon until further
orders for appointment of Head Master of aided higher
secondary schools. It is averred on behalf of the appellant
and not denied on behalf of any of the respondents that the
school in question is an aided higher secondary school and
that no further orders to the contrary have been passed so
far. The second ground put against the appellant in the
impugned judgment also must be rejected.
6. For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the
judgments of the High Court, rendered by the learned single
Judge and the Division Bench. We further hold that the
appellant must be treated to be fully qualified for the post
of the Head Master. Hence his case will be taken into
consideration before taking a final decision in the question
of the appointment of the Head Master in the concerned
school. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the
circumstances, without costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
786