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.