http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,ZILLA PARISHAD, BEED & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SYED YASIN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/04/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1994            JT 1996 (5)   135  1996 SCALE  (4)335

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by Special  leave is  directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 3.9.93 inter alia on the ground  that the  High Court  committed gross  error  in relying upon  the order of the Chief Executive Officer dated 18.4.90 even  though the  said Chief  Executive Officer  has suspended the  operation of  his earlier  order by his order dated 26.10.1990. The short facts necessary for adjudicating the point  in issue are that respondents 1 to 4 were serving under  Zilla   Parishad  as   Primary  School   Teachers  on deputation between  1962-1968 and  were finally  absorbed in the services  of Zilla  Parishad in  the year  1968-69.  The State of  Maharashtra, respondent no. 5, issued a Resolution no.PTP. 1070-F dated 22nd October 1970 authorizing the Zilla Parishads, authorized Municipalities in Western Maharashtra, the Nagpur  Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Councils in Nagpur  Division to upgrade the existing posts of primary school teachers  on their respective establishments into the posts of Head Masters in the scale of pay of Rs.145-250 with retrospective effect  from 1st  April 1966. It was, however. stated in the said Resolution that the number of posts to be upgraded in each Zilla Parishad should be equal to the total of the  number of primary school teachers upto and inclusive of Standard VII and other primary schools having 200 or more people on  their rolls  on 1st  April, 1966.  The Resolution also stipulated  that the  Zilla Parishads,  the  authorized Municipalities,  the   Nagpur  Municipal   Corporation   and Municipal Councils in Nagpur Division should be requested to fix the  number of  posts  of  Head  Masters  on  the  basis indicated above on 1st April, 1966 for the first time and to subsequently review  it annually on 1st April. The aforesaid Resolution further indicated that the Zilla Parishads should be requested  to fill  up  the  posts  of  Head  Masters  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

promotion in  accordance with  the provisions  of Rule  6(4) read with  item No.  8 in Appendix IV (Part II) to Rule 5 of the   Maharashtra    Zilla   Parishads   District   Services (Recruitment) Rules,  1967 (hereinafter  referred to as "the Recruitment Rules").  The relevant  Resolution is  extracted hereinbelow in extenso:      "    RESOLUTION.--Government     is      pleased   to authorise   the  Zilla      Parishads,               authorized      Municipalities      in      Western      Maharashtra, the   Nagpur Municipal      Corporation   and   the   Municipal      Councils in  Nagpur  Division    to      upgrade   the existing    posts  of      primary school  teachers  on  their      respective establishments  into the      posts of  Head Masters in the scale      of pay  Rs. 145-5-175-6-187-E.B.-6-      205-9-250, sanctioned in Government      Resolution,   Education and  social      Welfare Department,  No.PTP. 1069-F      dated the   19th June,  1969,  with      retrospective   effect   from   1st      April, 1966, the number of posts to      be upgraded by each Zilla Parishad.      authorized   Municipality.   Nagpur      Municipal    Corporation    or    a      Municipal Council,  as the case may      be, should  be equal  to the  total      of:      (i) the  number of  primary schools      teaching  upto   and  inclusive  of      Standard VII; and      (ii)  the   other  primary  schools      having 200  or more pupils on their      rolls on 1st April 1966.           The   Zilla   Parishads,   the      authorized   Municipalities,    the      Nagpur  Municipal  Corporation  and      Municipal   Councils    in   Nagpur      Division should be requested to fix      the number  of      posts  of  Head      Masters  on   the  basis  indicated      above on  1st   April 1966  for the      first  time   and  to  subsequently      review it annually on 1st April.       2. (A) The Zilla  Parishads should      be requested  to fill  up the posts      of Head  Masters  by  promotion  in      accordance with   the provisions of      Rule 6(4)  read with  item No.8  in      Appendix IV  (Part lI) to Rule 5 of      the  Maharashtra   Zilla  Parishads      District   Services   (Recruitment)      Rules, 1967.           EXPLANATION.-    A     primary      teacher who  has put  in continuous      service of  five years as a teacher      and who  is trained  should be held      eligible  for   promotion  to   the      upgraded post  of Head Master. Five      years’service       need        not      necessarily    be     post-training      service.      (B) The  Municipal  School  Boards,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    the  Nagpur  Municipal  Corporation      and  the   municipal  Councils   in      Nagpur Division should be requested      to  fill   up  the  posts  or  Head      Masters      authorized  under  the      Government Resolution  by promotion      in accordance  with the Recruitment      Rule attached  to this   Government      Resolution  (Schedule   A)  and  in      consultation       with  the  Staff      Selection Committee, if any.      3. The  fixation of pay. payment of      arrears and  other cognate  matters      should be  regulated in  accordance      with the  instructions contained in      Schedule   B   attached   to   this      Government Resolution.      4.   This   Government   Resolution      issues with  the concurrence of the      Rural  Development  Department  and      Finance  Department,  vide  Finance      Department, Unofficial          No.      1750/XXVI,  dated   22nd   October,      1970.           By order  and in  the name  of      the Governor of Maharashtra."           Schedule  A  attached  to  the      aforesaid Resolution  made it clear      that appointment to the posts shall      be made  by promotion  on the basis      of seniority-cum-merit  from  among      trained primary  school teachers in      the service of the Municipal School      Board, Corporation  of Council,  as      the case may be, who have completed      not less than 5 years of continuous      service as a teacher.           In Schedule B to the aforesaid      Resolution the  ’Head   Master’ was      defined thus -           "A  "Head   Master’  means   a      primary teacher  who was working as      the  Head  or  Head  Teacher  of  a      primary school."              Expression  "upgraded  Head      Master" was defined thus :           "A  post   of  ’upgraded  Head      Master’ means  the newly authorized      post of Head Master in the grade of      Rs.145-250".            Expression  "primary  teacher      eligible   for   appointment"   was      defined thus:           "A primary  teacher’  eligible      for appointment’  as an    upgraded      Head Master  is  that  teacher  who      fulfills the  conditions laid  down      in the  recruitment  rule  for  the      said  post  read  with  explanation      given below  para 2(A) of the  main      Government Resolution to which this      Schedule is      who on  the basis of his seniority-      cum-merit, had  been found eligible      by the  competent  authority  (i.e.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    the District  Selection Board,  the      Staff Selection Committee etc.) for      appointment to the said post."           Expression    a        primary      teacher    ’entitled             to      appointment"   was defined ) thus:-           A      primary         teacher      ’entitled   to appointment’  as  an      upgraded     Head   Master   on   a      particular date  is that    teacher      who       is      eligible      for      appointment and  who, by  virtue of      this rank  in the  list of teachers      eligible  for  appointment  to  the      posts  of  upgraded  Head  Masters,      becomes due  for appointment to the      said post on that date."           The  date     of      notional      appointment was defined thus:           "Date     of          notional      appointment"   is that   date    on      which   a  primary teacher entitled      to appointment  as      an upgraded      Head   Master   would   have   been      appointed   as such    because    a      vacancy was available on that date,      (It may be mentioned that in a vast      majority of cases, 1st April, 1966,      1st April,  1967, 1st  April  1968,      1st April  1969, 1st April 1970 and      so on will be the notional dates of      appointment.   In   a   few   cases      however,  the   notional  dates  of      appointment  may  fall  within  the      period  intervening   between   the      aforesaid  dates  if  vacancies  of      upgraded Head  Masters  had  arisen      owing to  retirement,   resignation      removal, dismissal, death etc.) "           Schedule  B   also  classified      the different   types     of  cases      where appropriate  authority    was      entitled       to upgrade  the post      of teacher  to that of  Head Master      and   to    review   the   position      annually. The relevant portions  of      the   Resolution      is  extracted      hereinbelow in extenso:           II. CLASSIFICATION OF CASES           The     Zilla       Parishads,      Municipal School            Boards,      Municipal     Corporations      and      Municipal  Councils   of     Nagpur      Division    have    been authorized      to       create     posts        of      upgraded Head  Masters with  effect      from 1st  April 1966  and to review      the position  annually  on  1st  of      April every  year thereafter.  As a      result, following  types  of  cases      are likely to arise:           (a)   A     primary    teacher      who   is entitled  to   appointment      as    an  upgraded   Head    Master      from      1st       April 1966  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    has     also      actually   worked      continuously   as  a   Head  Master      of      an    eligible      Primary      School from 1st April 1966, or from      any   subsequent   date,   or   for      intermittent  periods   after   1st      April   1966,   till   his   actual      appointment  as  an  upgraded  Head      Master after  the newly  authorized      post of    upgradedad  Masters  are      formally  created:   or  till   his      superannuation.         retirement,      resignation etc. on a date prior to      the  date   on  which   the   newly      authorized posts  of upgraded  Head      Masters are formally created.           (b)   A     primary    teacher      who   is entitled  to   appointment      as    an  upgraded Head Master from      1st April        1966 but  has  not      actually worked as a  Head   Master      of    an   eligible  Primary School      for any   period   of    whatsoever      from 1st  April 1966  till he    is      actually     appointed     as    an      upgraded.  Head  Master  after  the      newly authorized  posts of upgraded      Head Masters  are formally created;      or   till    his    superannuation,      retirement, resignation  etc. on  a      date prior to the date on which the      newly authorized  posts of upgraded      Head Masters are formally crated.           (c)   A     primary    teacher      who   is entitled  to   appointment      as    an  upgraded Head   Master on      any   date       subsequent to  1st      April   1966   and who          has      actually     worked continuously as      a  Head   Master  of   an  eligible      primary   school   from   1st April      1966  or from  any subsequent date,      or   for intermittent  periods from      1st    April   1966,    till    his      actual appointment  as an  upgraded      Head   Master   after   the   newly      authorized posts  of upgraded  Head      Masters are  formally  created;  or      till      his       superannuation,      retirement, resignation  etc. on  a      date prior to the date on which the      newly authorized  posts of upgraded      Head Masters are formally created.           (d)   A     primary    teacher      who   is entitled  to   appointment      as    an  upgraded Head   Master on      any   date       subsequent to  1st      April   1966  but has not  actually      worked   as a  Head Master  of   an      eligible    primary school for  any      period   whatsoever from 1st  April      1966   till   he   is      actually      appointed   as an    upgraded  Head      Master    after      the      newly      authorized posts  of upgraded  Head

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    Masters are  formally  created;  or      till      his       superannuation,      retirement, resignation  etc. on  a      date prior to the date on which the      newly  authorized   posts  upgraded      Head Masters are formally created.           (e) A  primary teacher who was      only eligible   for     appointment      as   an upgraded  Head   Master and      who   has          actually  worked      continuously as   a Head Master  of      an eligible primary school from 1st      April 1966,  or from            any      subsequent    date,     or      for      intermittent  periods   after   1st      April 1966, but who is not entitled      to appointment  as an upgraded Head      Master even  after  all  the  newly      authorized posts  of upgraded  Head      Masters  uptodate  (i.e.  unto  1st      April 1970)  are formally  created;      or would  not have  become entitled      to appointment  as an upgraded Head      Masters  till  his  superannuation,      retirement, resignation  etc. on  a      date prior to the date on which all      the  newly   authorized  posts   of      upgraded  Head  Masters  upto  date      (i.e.  upto  1st  April  1970)  are      formally created.           (f) A  primary teacher  who is      not even  eligible for  appointment      as an  upgraded Head    Master  but      actually       worked  continuously      as   a    Head  Master   of      an      eligible    primary school from 1st      April 1966,  or from            any      subsequent    date.     or      for      intermittent  periods   after   1st      April   1966    till   the    newly      unauthorise  posts     of  upgraded      Head  Masters     are      formally      created   an appointment are  made,      thereto   of      teachers entitled      to   appointment, or    till    his      superannuation,         retirement,      resignation   etc. on   a      date      prior to  the  date  on  which  the      newly authorized  posts of upgraded      Head Masters are formally created."      Respondents nos. 1 to 4 filed Writ Petition No. 1638 of 1489 before  the Bombay  High Court  at Aurangabad  claiming that they  are entitled  to the tine scale of pay admissible to’ the post of Head Master with effect from 1.4.1966 on the basis  of   the  aforesaid   Government   Resolution   dated 22.10.1970. While  the matter  was pending  before the  High Court the  Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad who was the  competent   authority  to   decide  the   question   of upgradation and  fixing of scale of pay of the upgraded Head Masters considered  the representations filed by respondents 1 to  4  and  by  his  order  dated  18.4.90  directed  that respondents 1  to 4  be granted  the scale  of pay meant for upgraded Head Masters with effect from 1.4.1966. Pursuant to the aforesaid  order of  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  the Education Officer of Zilla Parishad passed the consequential

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

order of  31.5.1990 fixing the scale of pay of respondents 1 to 4 in the upgraded scale. But when the matter was referred to the Accounts Officers of Zilla Parishad for  verification it was  he who  pointed out the error error committed by the Chief Executive Officer and indicated that the said order is contrary to  the Government  Resolution dated 22.10.1970. On the basis  of the  aforesaid notings of the Accounts Officer the Chief  Executive Officer  suspended the operation of his earlier  order   dated  18.4.1990  and  the  orders  of  the Education  Officer   dated  31.5.1990  by  his  order  dated 26.10.1990.  In  the  pending  Writ  proceedings  the  Zilla Parishad and  other officers  filed their counter affidavits indicating that  the respondents  l to 4 could not have been granted the  higher scale  of pay  in the  grade of upgraded Head Masters  as such  posts were not available, in terms of Clauses (i) and (ii) of the Resolution dated 22.10.1970. The High Court,  however, by  the impugned  order  without  even noticing the order of the Executive Officer dated 26.10.1990 and solely  relying upon  his earlier  order dated 18.4.1990 allowed the Writ Application and hence this appeal.      Mr. Manoj  Swarup learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant contended  that the  High  Court  committed  gross error in giving effect to the order of the Executive Officer dated 18.4.1990  even though  the said  order had  been kept under suspension  by the  later order  dated 26.10.1990. The learned counsel  further urged  that  though  the  Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad is entitled to upgrade the post of primary school  teachers on  their establishment to the post of Head  Master but such upgradation would be dependent upon the  number   of  vacancies  available  after  applying  the preconditions mentioned  in the Resolution dated 22.10.1970. Since the  Chief Executive  Officer  without  focussing  his attention to that had passed orders in favour of respondents 1 to  4 the  error having  been pointed  out by the Accounts Officer he  reconsidered the matter and had placed the order under suspension  and the  High Court without even examining the question as to whether there was vacancy for upgradation in terms  of Resolution  dated 22nd  Octobers 1970 committed error in  directing implementation  of the  earlier order of the Executive Officer dated 18.4.99.      The learned  counsel for  the respondent  on the  other hand  contended   that   there   were   several   subsequent clarificatory orders  issued by  the State  Government which would make the position clear that respondents are  entitled for being  promoted to the upgraded post of Head Masters and the High  Court did  not commit any error in granting relief in question. But on being questioned the learned counsel for the respondents  could not  lay his  hand on  any  of  those circulars nor  was he able to establish that the respondents were entitled  to be  promoted to  the upgraded post of Head Masters in  accordance with  the Resolution  of  the  Stated Government dated 22.10.1970.      Having heard  the learned  counsel for  the parties  we find sufficient force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned  counsel  for  the  appellants.  On  a  bare reading of  the Resolution  dated 22.10.1970  we are  of the opinion that  a Chief  Executive Officer of a Zilla Parishad would be  authorized to  upgrade the  post of primary school teacher to  that  of  Head  Master  provided  the  condition precedent prescribed  in the  said Resolution are satisfied. The Resolution  in question does not ipso facto converts the post of  primary school  teacher to  that of Head Master. In this view  of the  matter the  Chief Executive  Officer  was entitled to  consider the  matter afresh and put the earlier order in  abeyance. Non  consideration of  his  order  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

26.10.1990 by the High Court and directing implementation of the earlier  order dated  18.4.1990 vitiates the judgment of the High Court. In the aforesaid premises the impugned order of the  High Court  cannot be  sustained and  we accordingly quash the  same. Needless  to mention  that since  the Chief Executive Officer  has merely  suspended the  earlier  order dated 18.4.1990  and has  not taken  any final decision with regard to   the  entitlement   of  respondents  1  to  4  to be appointed against the upgraded post of Head Master and if so with  effect   of what  date, the  said  Chief  Executive Officer, appellant  in the  present appeal,  is directed  to take a  final decision  within  three months  from the  date of   receipt of  this order  and  communicate  the  same  to respondents 1 to 4.      This  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed.  But  in  the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.