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