http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3190  of 1999         Appeal (civil)  4670     of 1999

PETITIONER: PABITRA MOHAN DASH ETC..

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/01/2001

BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, B.N.Agarwal

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     JUDGMENT

     PATTANAIK,J.

     These two appeals are directed against a Special Bench judgment  of the Orissa High Court dated 25th January, 1999. By the said judgment some of the directions contained in the earlier  Full  Bench  decisions have been  set  aside.   The appellants,  who  were  Head Masters  of  different  Private Schools, and those schools became later on Aided Educational Institutions,  and  finally became full  fledged  Government schools,  are  aggrieved  by the impugned  judgment  of  the Orissa  High Court as in implementation of the said judgment they cannot be continued as Head Masters.

     Prior  to  the enactment of the Orissa Education  Act, 1969(hereinafter  referred to as The Act), the educational activities  in  the  State of Orissa  were  being  regulated through a collection of executive instructions issued by the Government from time to time and those instructions had been embodied in a Code, called Education Code.  The provisions of  the  Code  had no statutory support and,  as  such,  the Government  was not able to exercise effective control  over the   management   of     the   Non-Government   Educational Institutions.   The  management  of such  institutions  were playing  hire and fire with the services of the teachers  of the  institution.   The  Orissa Legislature felt  that  such employees  of  the Non-Government  Educational  Institutions should be protected from the exploitation by the management, and  government  also  should have some control  over  those Non-Government  Institutions  so  that   conditions  of  the institutions  would not deteriorate.  It is with this object the  Orissa  Education Act was enacted in the year 1969  and since  then  has been amended from time to time to suit  the needs  of  the  hour  and by now the Act of  1969  has  been amended   9   times.   Section  3  (m)  defines   the   word prescribed  to  mean  prescribed  by  rules.   Section   6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

provides  the  procedure for recognition of the  Educational Institutions.  Sub-section (12) of Section 6 stipulates that no Educational Institution shall be eligible for affiliation or   recognition  by  the   Board  of  Secondary   Education constituted  under the Orissa Secondary Education Act,  1952 or  the  Council of Higher Secondary  Education  constituted under  the Orissa Council of Higher Secondary Education Act, 1992  unless  it has received recognition under the Act  and continued  to  be  so recognised.  Section 10  provides  the conditions  of  service of the staff of aided  institutions. Section  10-C provides for constitution of a common cadre in relation  to  all  or any class of employees of all  or  any category  of  aided  Educational   Institutions  as  may  be specified  in the order.  Much prior to the enactment of the Act  in  1969 the Orissa Legislature had enacted the Act  in the  year  1952  (Orissa  Act  10  of  1953)  called  Orissa Secondary  Education  Act 1952 (hereinafter referred  to  as the  Secondary  Education  Act).    The  Act  intended  to establish a Board to regulate, control and develop secondary education   in   the  State  of  Orissa.    The   expression prescribed  has  been  defined  in  Section  2(i)  of  the aforesaid  Act to mean prescribed by regulations made by the Board  under the Act.  Section 3 of the aforesaid  Secondary Education  Act  cast  duty  on   the  State  Government   to constitute  a Board called the Board of Secondary  Education to  regulate, control and develop Secondary Education in the State  of  Orissa.   The  Board is  a  body  corporate  with perpetual  succession  and  a  common  seal.   Section  2(k) defines recognition to mean recognition for the admission to the  privileges  of  the Board  including  its  examination. Section  2(i) defines Regulation to mean Regulation made  or deemed  to  have  been  made by the  Board  under  the  Act. Section  21 is the power of the Board to make Regulation for the  purpose  of carrying into effect the provisions of  the Act.   Chapter  IX  of the Regulations  deals  with  certain pre-conditions  in respect of the educational  institutions. Regulation  1 of Chapter IX provides that no school which is not  recognised  by the Board shall be permitted to  present candidates  for  any  examination conducted  by  the  Board. Regulation  17  deals  with the conditions to  be  fulfilled before permission is granted to open certain classes and for a  school with class IX and above it must have a Head Master who  has  to be a trained graduate in arts or  science  with minimum  7  years  experience after training.  It  is  this condition   prescribed  under  the   Regulation  for   being appointed as Head Master of an aided educational institution which  is the subject matter of controversy in the  impugned case  and was the subject matter of controversy in the cases where  earlier  Full Bench of the High Court had taken  some decisions  which stood reversed by impugned judgment of  the Special  Bench  of Orissa High Court.  In exercise of  power under  Secion 27 of the Act a set of Rules have been framed, called,  the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service  of  teachers  and  principals and  staff  of  Aided Educational  Institution) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter  referred to  as  the Recruitment Rules).  Rule 6 provides  procedure for  selection of candidates on determining their merit  and suitability  in  the manner as determined in  Regulation  of Selection  Board.  Rule 7 provides condition of  eligibility of candidates.  Rule 7(c) further stipulates that the age or qualification  for  appointment as a teacher and  for  other posts would be the same as for similar or corresponding post in  educational institution established or maintained by the Government.   Rule  8 carves out certain exceptions  to  the selection  by the Board as provided in Rule 6.  Rule 8(3) is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the  procedure  for filling up the post of Head  Master  and Head  Mistress  of schools.  Regulation 17 of Chapter IX  of the  Boards  Regulation  as  well  as  Rule  8(3)  of   the Regulation Rules are extracted hereinbelow in extenso:-

     Regulation  17.   A school seeking to open  Class  IX shall  be required to fulfil the following conditions before permission   to  open  the   Class  is  given  (1)ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION:-   Class  room  of   the  prescribed  size Additional  classroom of minimum floor area of 192 sq.   Ft. And  minimum  width of 16 ft.  (If more than two  additional subjects  are  taught  in the school, for  every  additional subject  one  more room has to be provided.) (2)  ADDITIONAL STAFF:-  (I)  Headmaster  :- A Trained Graduate in  Arts  or Science  with  minimum  7 years experience  after  training. (II)  One  Trained  Graduate   teacher  (preferably   having Sanskrit  as  one  of the subjects in  degree  stage)  (III) Non-teaching staff:- (iii) L.D.  Assistant - One

     (3)  ADDITIONAL FURNITURE :- These should conform  the approved  list.   (4)  ADDITIONAL APPARATUS:-  These  should conform  the  approved list.  (5) LIBRARY :- At least  books worth Rs.250/- have to be purchased in addition to the books already in stock.

     Rule 8(3) of Education Rules  Vacancies in the posts of   Headmasters   of   aided   Boys   High   Schools   and Headmistresses  of Girls High Schools and Readers, including Principals  of aided Colleges under the fold of the  system direct  payment of full-salary- cost shall be filled up  by the  eligible  trained  graduate   teachers  of   respective categories   of  High  Schools   and  Headmasters  and  Head mistresses  of  respective  categories   of  Middle  English Schools,  and by the lecturers belonging to the common cadre of  the Aided Colleges, as the case may be, from the  select list  prepared  by  the  Selection   Board  in  the   Manner prescribed  in the Regulation framed by the Selection  Board for  the  purpose, on the basis of the recommendation  of  a Committee to be constituted by the Government which shall be headed  by the Director.  The selection shall be made on the basis  of  seniority  in  the   common  feeding  cadre   and performance.   The zone of consideration shall be thrice the number of vacancies:  Provided that ad hoc promotions to the posts   of  Readers  which   included  Principals  of  aided Collegesasters   of   aided    Boys    High   Schools   and Headmistresses  of aided Girls High Schools under the  fold of  the  system of direct  payment-of-full-salary-cost  may however, be made from the concerned common feeding cadre for a  period of one year or till the date of receipt of  select list from the Selection Board, whichever is earlier with the prior approval of Government:

     Provided further that in the absence of common feeling cadres,  appointment  to the posts of Headmasters  of  aided Boys’  Hgh Schools and Headmistresses of aided Girls  High Schools  of  the  State  under the fold  of  the  system  of direct-payment-  of-full-salary  cost  can be  made  by  the authority  from  amongst  the   eligible  trained   graduate teachers  of the respective categories of aided High Schools and aided Middle English schools, as the case may be, on the recommendation  of  the  Selection  Board  through  an  open advertisement.   The Selection shall be on the basis of  the length  of  service  and  performance  as  trained  graduate teachers   in   aided  High   Schools  or  Headmasters   and Headmistresses in aided Middle English Schools.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

     It  may  be noticed that Regulation 17  providing  the qualification of the staff, as aforesaid, came into force on 29.4.1977  and Rule 8(3) of the Recruitment Rules came  into force  on  3.5.1988.  The provisions of the aforesaid  Acts, Regulation and Rules are complimentary to each other and are essentially  intended  to confer powers on  the  Educational Authorities  of the Government to exercise control over  the management  of the institutions and also provide  conditions of  service of the employees so that the management will not be  free  to  have  any  person   as  the  employee  of  the institution nor would it be free to terminate the service of the employee whenever it likes, even though the power of the Management  vest with the Committee of the Management of the school.   It must also be borne in mind that no school would be  entitled  to present its students appearing at the  High School  Certificate  Examination  unless   the  school  gets recognition  from  the  Board  of  Secondary  Education  and further  the  school must satisfy the Board  before  getting recognition  that  it  has  the   minimum  staff  with   the prescribed qualification as provided under Regulation 17.

     Prior  to the enactment of Orissa Education Act, under the  so called Administrative Instructions called the Orissa Education  Code the staffing pattern of High School provided that  the  school  shall have 4 posts  of  trained  graduate teachers  including the headmaster apart from other teachers and clerical staff.  Thus any trained graduate teacher could be  appointed as Headmaster under the set of  Administrative Instructions.   Until 29.4.1977 when the Regulations  framed under  the  Secondary Education Act, 1952, was  amended  the prescribed  qualification  for the post of Headmaster  of  a school  was  merely  a trained graduate.  By virtue  of  the amended  Regulation,  the said prescribed qualification  for the post of headmaster of a school became a trained graduate in  arts  or science with minimum 7 years  experience  after training.   It is to be noticed that schools whether private or aided or Government will have to get recognition from the Board  of Secondary Education without which it would not  be permissible for the institution to present its candidates at the   annual  High  School   Certificate   examination   and necessarily,  therefore, the institution will be entitled to get  recognition only if it has the required number of staff with  the  prescribed  qualification   and  consequently   a Headmaster  will  have to be a trained graduate in  arts  or science with 7 years teaching experience after becoming such trained  graduate.   Though the regulation framed under  the Board   of   Secondary   Education    Act   prescribed   the qualification  for  the  post of a  Headmaster  neither  the Education  Act  nor the Recruitment Rules of 1974 framed  in exercise  of  powers  under  the Act of 1969  deal  with  or prescribe  the  qualification  for the  appointment  of  the Headmaster  of  a  High School.  Rule 8 of  the  Recruitment Rules,  however, provides exception to the selection by  the Board and Rule 8(3) of the said Rules provides the procedure for  filling  up of the vacancies in the post of  Headmaster and  the aforesaid Rule 8(3) came on 3.6.1988.  As has  been stated   earlier,  under  the   Orissa  Education  Code  the prescribed  qualification  for the post of Headmaster  of  a school  was  merely a trained graduate whereas  with  effect from  29.4.1977 the prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster  under the Regulations framed under the Board  of Secondary  Education  Act became a trained science  graduate with 7 years of teaching experience after becoming a trained graduate.   Since the provisions of the Regulation, Act  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  Rules  are  complimentary  to   each  other,  it   must necessarily  be  held that no school can have  a  Headmaster after  29.4.1977 who does not possess the qualification of 7 years  of teaching experience as a trained graduate teacher. The  schools usually start in villages on private  donations and  continue  for some period on the tuition  fee  received from  the  students  and the donation of the  local  public. After continuing for some period the State Government grants financial assistance , called Grant-in-aid and on receipt of such grant schools became aided educational institutions, as defined in the Act as well as the Recruitment Rules of 1974. Though  the  conditions of service of an  aided  educational institution  is  governed by the provisions  of  Recruitment Rules  of 1974 which Rule confers adequate control with  the Educational Authorities even in the matter of appointment of teachers  in  the  institutions  but   the  same  having  no application  to the private schools, the Managing  Committee of  the private schools who continue to be the employer  and were  appointing teachers including the Headmaster on  their own.   Though such private schools are also required to  get recognition  from  the State Government without  which  they would  not be eligible for affiliation or recognition by the Board  of  Secondary Education constituted under the  Orissa Secondary   Education  Act,  1952,  yet   at  the  time   of recruitment  of  the personnel the  Educational  Authorities were  not having any control over the process of recruitment and  in  the  process many private schools  which  later  on became  aided educational institutions and finally landed up as  Government  schools continued to have  Headmasters  even subsequent  to 29.4.1977 when Regulation 17 was inserted  by amendment without 7 years of teaching experience after being a  trained  graduate.  Right of such people to  continue  as Headmaster  came  to be considered in the First  Full  Bench Judgment  in  the  case Golakh Chand Mohanty vs.   State  of Orissa   and  others  After   elaborate  discussion  of  the different  provisions  of the Act, Regulation and the  Rules the   said  Full  Bench  in   its  judgment  recorded   five conclusions  which  have been quoted in paragraph 3  of  the impugned  judgment  of the Special Bench.  A Batch  of  Writ Petitions subsequent to the aforesaid Full Bench decision in Golakh  Chand Mohantys case (supra) when were listed before a  Division  Bench the Division Bench felt that by  applying the  ratio  of  the  Full Bench  decision  in  Golakh  Chand Mohantys  case (supra) great harassment would be caused  to all  those teachers who had been appointed as Headmasters of different un-aided schools when there was no such embargo or requirement  of  7 years of teaching experience  as  trained graduate  teacher  was there and consequently, Golakh  Chand Mohantys  case (supra) may be re- considered.  These  batch of  cases  were heard by the subsequent Full Bench  and  the subsequent  Full Bench also came to the conclusion that  the decision  in  Golakh Chand Mohantys case (supra)  does  not need re-consideration, as has been noticed in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment of the Special Bench.  After answering the  reference,  the cases were listed before  the  Division Bench  of the Orissa High Court and the learned Judge of the Division  Bench  felt, because of conflicting views  of  the earlier  Division Benches of the said Court on the  question whether  the Inspectors order or approval of an incumbent of headmaster-incharge  of  the  school   is  protected   under conclusion  no.  2 recorded by the Full Bench in the case of Golakh  Chand  Mohany (supra), and accordingly referred  the cases  again to a larger Bench.  When the cases were  listed before  the  Full Bench, the Full Bench felt that  though  a single  question  has been referred to but yet there  remain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

some  grey  areas in the earlier two decisions of  the  Full Bench  and, therefore, Special Bench of Five Learned  Judges was  constituted  to examine the entire controversy  afresh. After  a thorough consideration of the matter Special  Bench recorded  its  conclusion in paragraph 19 which  are  quoted hereunder :-

     (a)  The decision of the Full Bench of this Court  in Golakh  Chandra  Mohantys  case  (supra)  as  contained  in sub-paras  (2),  (3) and (4) of paragraph 26 is contrary  of law.   In paragraph 26(2) of the judgment, use of expression appointments  is  admittedly  improper  as  there  is   no question  of direct appointment.  In paragraph 20, the  Full Bench itself observed that all posts were to be filled up as required  by  Rule 8(3) of the Rules.  Regulation  17(2)  of Chapter  IX  of  Boards Regulations is applicable  to  both aided  and  unaided institutions and only when a  person  is trained  graduate with minimum of seven years of  experience after  training is eligible to become as Headmaster.  (b) In Priti  Ranjans  case (supra) the second Full Bench  obseved that  the  date 3.6.1988 has rational nexus with the  object sought  to be achieved by the provisions.  The conclusion is indefensible  in view of the analysis made above.  The basis for  such conclusion was enactment of Rule 8(3).  IN VIEW of the  analysis made that the Regulation 17(2)(i) operated  at all times, the basis for such conclusion does not hold good. The  conclusion in Golakh Chandra Mohantys case (supra)  as followed  in Priti Ranjan Pradhans case that in cases where prescribed  qualification had not been acquired by 3.6.1988, but  were  acquired  subsequently  were to  be  approved  is clearly  without any basis.  ...............  (c) The orders of  approval  passed by the Inspectors of Schools are of  no consequence  and  do not have any force on the  question  of promotion in terms of Rule 8(3).

     It is these conclusions of the Special Bench which are being assailed in these appeals.

     Mr.   Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel apapearing for the appellant  in  C.A.  3190 of 1999 contended with force  that the  earlier  Full  Bench in Golakh Chandra  Mohantys  case (supra)  having  considered the relevant provisions  of  the Act,  Regulation  and  Rules framed  thereunder  and  having issued Five directions which were re- affirmed by the Second Full  Bench judgment and those judgments not being  assailed by  the State or any other aggrieved party, benefit  accrued to the persons pursuant to the said judgment cannot be taken away by the subsequent Special Bench judgment which is being impugned  in  these appeals.  He further contended that  the provisions  of the Orissa Education Code having continued to remain in force so far as private schools are concerned, and there  being no requirement under the Orissa Education  Act, 1969, or the Recruitment Rules framed thereunder of the year 1974  that the Headmaster must be a trained graduate with  7 years  of  teaching  experience as a trained  graduate,  the headmasters  of private schools later on cannot be  deprived of  that  right when the school becomes aided school or  the government  school.   This judgment of the Special Bench  on that  score,  therefore, cannot be sustained.   The  learned counsel  further  urged  that the expression  approval  in second  direction  of Golakh Chandra Mohantys case  (supra) must  mean approval of Inspector of schools and consequently whereever the appointment as Headmaster has been approved by the  Inspector  of School until the impugned  Special  Bench Judgment  those Headmasters cannot be discontinued of  their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

right  to  continue as Headmaster and getting the pay  scale attached  to  Headmaster and the impugned judgment  must  be held to be only prospective in nature.

     Mr.   A.K.  Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing  in other  Civil Appeal reiterated the contentions raised by Mr. Ranjit  Kumar  and further added that there was no  bar  for direct recruitment for the post of Headmaster so long as the schools  were  neither  aided nor government  and  to  those category  of employees, the provisions of Recruitment  Rules will  have no application inasmuch as the Recruitment  Rules of 1974 apply to service conditions of the Aided Educational Institutions.   Consequently  those employees right to  get the  scale  of pay attached to Headmaster cannot be said  to have  been taken away by the impugned judgment.  He had also urged that in view of the terms of reference in the batch of cases  it was not open for the Special Bench to re-  examine the  entire matter afresh even though the State or any other person had not challenged the Full Bench Judgement in Golakh Chandra  Mohantys  case (supra) as well as  the  subsequent Full Bench decision re-affirming the same.

     Mr.   J.R.  Das, the learned counsel appearing for the State  of Orissa, Mr.  P.N.  Mishra, learned senior  counsel appearing  for  some  of the interveners  and  Mr.   Sanyal, learned   senior  counsel  appearing   for  another  set  of interveners  on  the other hand contended, that  the  latter Full  Bench while hearing the batch of cases having felt  it necessary  to re-examine the correctness of the observations made  in  the Golakh Chandra Mohantys case (supra) and  for that  purpose having constituted a larger Bench of 5 Judges, the  contention  that it had no jurisdiction to go into  the matter is wholly unsustainable.  According to Mr.  J.R.  Das the  expression approval in the direction no.  2 in Golakh Chandra   Mohantys   case  (supra)   must   mean   approval contemplated  under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Recruitment Rules of 1974   and   consequently  any   approval  of  any   illegal appointment  not by the Competent Authority or somebody else would  not  amount to the approval.  It was also urged  that the provisions contained in Board of Secondary Education and the  Regulations framed thereunder, the Orissa Education Act and  the Recruitment Rules of 1974 laid down the  conditions of  services  of  the Aided  Educational  Institution  being complimentary  to  one  another and  the  Regulation  itself having  provided  the minimum qualification for the post  of Headmaster   as  trained  graduate   and  7  years  teaching experience  it would not be permissible for a Court to  hold otherwise,  and therefore, the Special Bench rightly took up the  matter and removed the anomalies.  Even on the question of  adjustment  of  equity or equitable  consideration  this contention  that the minimum qualification prescribed  under the  statutory  provision  cannot be dispensed with  by  the judgment of Court and as such the Special Bench rightly held the  so called approval, if any, of the Inspector of Schools is null and void.

     Having  examined  the  rival   contentions  and  on  a thorough  scrutiny  of two earlier Full Bench  decisions  as well as the impugned judgment of the Special Bench we are of the  considered  opinion  that  the  Special  Bench  rightly thought  it  appropriate  to reconsider  the  entire  matter afresh  and re-determine the issues involved in the light of the  relevant  provisions of the Act, Rules and  Regulations after  hearing  at  length on all issues and  there  was  no infirmity  on that score even though the point of  reference

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

was  of a limited nature.  Courts exist to interpret the law and  while  examining  the provisions of any  Act,  Rule  or Regulation,  if it is felt that the earlier decision on  the question is not clear on any particular issue or has created confusion  in resolving the disputes or has caused  hardship to  a group of people, it would be the duty of the court  to re-examine  the  matter  after  giving  opportunity  to  all parties  concerned  and by such process question  of  taking away  anybodys vested right does not arise.  In the case in hand  it  is  not a particular writ or order that  had  been issued in favour of any individual is sought to be nullified by the subsequent Special Bench decision.  On the other hand the  erroneous conclusion of the relevant provisions of  the Act,  Regulation and Rules are sought to be corrected and we see  no  infirmity  in this approach of the  Special  Bench. That  apart,  though point of reference may be of a  limited nature  but in answering the same if the Court feels that it would  be in the interest of justice to constitute a  larger Bench  and examine the correctness of any earlier conclusion which might have been made on an erroneous interpretation of any  provision,  then there would be no fetter for  adopting that  procedure.   In  this  view of the matter  we  see  no infirmity  with  the  approach  of   the  Special  Bench  in re-examining  the issues afresh in the light of the relevant provisions  of the Act, Rules and Regulations.  We have also carefully  examined the conclusions of the impugned judgment of the Special Bench and we are unable to persuade ourselves to  agree with the submission of Mr.  Ranjit Kumar that  the said  conclusions are either erroneous on interpretation  of relevant  provisions or in any way intended to take away the rights  of  any  persons  who have got the  benefit  of  the earlier  Full Bench decision.  It is not disputed that  with effect  from  29.5.1977  Regulation  17   in  the  Board  of Secondary  Education has been brought into force which makes it obligatory for every institution to have a Headmaster who must be a trained graduate and must have 7 years of teaching experience  as a trained graduate teacher.  If subsequent to 29.5.1977  any appointment has been made to the post of Head Master   contrary  to  the   aforesaid  provisions  of   the Regulation  then  the  said  appointment  would  be  invalid appointment and would not confer any right on the appointee. The  expression  approval used in the second direction  in Golakh  Chandra Mohantys case is referable to the  approval contemplated under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Recruitment Rule and, therefore,  if  there has been an approval by  the  Director then  in  such a case the appointment made after  the  prior approval  would  not  be  invalidated.   In  our  considered opinion the conclusion of the Special Bench that an approval of  the  Inspector is no approval in the eye of law  is  the correct  position,  and  as  such,   does  not  require  any interference  by this Court.  We would further make it clear that  a person who has been appointed as Headmaster incharge cannot claim any right on the basis of that appointment even if  the  same  might  have been approved  by  any  Competent Educational  Authority.  The Incharge Headmaster is not  the same  as the Headmaster of the school and it merely entitles a  person  to remain incharge and discharge the duties of  a Headmaster.    In  this  view  of   the  matter  where   the appointment  itself  has been to the post of  Headmaster  as in-charge, and such appointment had been approved, obviously the  said  appointee  cannot  claim   to  be  continued   as Headmaster  or  to  be  entitled to get  the  scale  of  pay attached  to  the post of Headmaster.  The Special Bench  in the  impugned judgment has correctly analysed the  different provisions  of  the Rules and Regulations and  have  rightly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

come  to the finding on the directions 2, 3, 4 and 5 of  the earlier  Full  Bench  decision in Golakh  Chandra  Mohantys case.

     In the aforesaid premises, we do not see any infirmity with  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  Special  Bench requiring   interference  by  this   Court.    The   appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed.