REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.18247 of 2006

V. RANGANATHAN         … PETITIONER VS.

N. BASKARAN & ORS.      … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. The Respondent No.1 herein, Shri N. Baskaran,  

and the Union Public Service Commission filed two  

separate writ petitions, being W.P. Nos.41237 of

2005  and  10771  of  2006,  challenging  the  order  

passed  by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  

Chennai Bench, on 7th December, 2005 in O.A. No.689  

of 2004.  The relief prayed for by the Petitioner  

herein,  who  was  the  Applicant  in  the  Original  

Application,  was  for  a  direction  upon  the  Union  

Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.) to appoint him  

to  the  post  of  Principal  in  a  Higher  Secondary  

School  in  Pondicherry  under  the  Scheduled  Caste  

category instead of Shri N. Baskaran, pursuant to  

order No.F.1/114/2003-R.III dated 16th July, 2004,  

issued by the said Respondent.  The said relief was  

subsequently amended in the following manner :-

“Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be  pleased to implead the third respondent as  party respondent in O.A.No.689/2004 so as  to quash the appointment order issued by  the  3rd respondent  in  his  letter  in  Ref.No.A.12012/CS/EBN/E.  1/2004  dated  13.8.2004 and thus render justice.”

2

2. The facts, which led to filing of the two writ  

petitions, indicate that the Secretary, U.P.S.C.,  

invited  applications  for  appointment  to  three  

vacancies  to  the  post  of  Principal,  Government  

Higher  Secondary  Schools  in  Pondicherry,  by  

Advertisement  No.17  published  in  the  “Employment  

News” on 13th September, 2003. Out of the said three  

vacancies, one was reserved for a candidate from  

the Scheduled Castes category. It appears that in  

the vacancies for candidates belonging to Scheduled  

Castes, 48 applications were received and on the  

basis of preliminary scrutiny, 11 candidates were  

short-listed and called for interview on 9.3.2004.  

Both, Shri N. Baskaran and Shri V. Ranganathan, the  

Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition  

No.41237/2005,  were  among  the  11  candidates  who  

were called for the interview.  Apparently, based  

on  his  performance  in  the  interview,  Shri  N.  

3

Baskaran  was  selected  for  the  post  as  per  the  

Selection  List  published  on  16.7.2004.  It  is  

thereafter  that  Shri  V.  Ranganathan  filed  the  

above-mentioned  O.A.No.689  of  2004  before  the  

Chennai  Bench  of  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal.  The  Tribunal,  by  its  order  dated  

7.12.2005,  allowed  the  Original  Application  and  

also directed the official respondents to appoint  

the  Applicant  as  the  Principal  of  the  concerned  

Higher Secondary School.  Aggrieved thereby, Shri  

N.  Baskaran  challenged  such  selection  in  Writ  

Petition No.41237 of 2005.

3. One of the conditions which had to be fulfilled  

by the candidate for being eligible to be appointed  

in terms of the advertisement was to have 10 years’  

teaching experience in a Higher Secondary School.  

As per Shri N. Baskaran’s version, he had more than  

18  years  total  experience  of  teaching.  However,  

4

according to the Union Public Service Commission,  

as far as the Higher Secondary level is concerned,  

he  had  only  10  years  and  4  months  of  teaching  

experience.  It is Shri Baskaran‘s case that he  

also possessed a Post Graduate Degree in Chemistry  

and a Post Graduate Degree in Education.  It was,  

therefore, claimed on his behalf that he was fully  

qualified for selection and appointment to the post  

of Principal of a Higher Secondary School.   

4. On Shri N. Baskaran’s behalf it was submitted  

that  the  service  rendered  by  him  in  the  Higher  

Secondary  Schools  as  well  as  at  the  Higher  

Secondary level should be taken into account for  

calculating the period of qualifying service. It  

was  mentioned  that  Shri  Baskaran  had  handled  

Chemistry as a subject at a Higher Secondary level.  

That  apart,  the  educational  qualification  for  a  

teacher working in a Polytechnic is the same as  

5

that  of  teachers  working  in  Higher  Secondary  

Schools.  In addition to the above, as far as the  

service rendered by Shri Baskaran in the District  

Institute of Education and Training is concerned,  

the  same  would  also  have  to  be  taken  into  

consideration for computing the years of service at  

a  Higher  Secondary  level  as  the  educational  

qualifications  prescribed  for  teachers  in  Higher  

Secondary  Schools  and  the  District  Institute  of  

Education  are  the  same  and  both  the  posts  are  

interchangeable and carry the same scale of pay.    

5. As far as Shri V. Ranganathan is concerned, it  

was stated on behalf of the U.P.S.C. that although  

he had been short-listed and was also called for  

the interview to fill up the vacancies in question,  

he could not be recommended by the Interview Board  

for the post of Principal as his merit position at  

Serial No.10 did not bring him within the zone of  

6

consideration  for  filling  up  the  said  post.  

Accordingly, his case was not considered for the  

purpose of filling up one of such vacancies.   

6. The Tribunal rejected the contentions made on  

behalf of Shri Baskaran and allowed the application  

filed  by  the  Petitioner  herein  and  directed  the  

concerned  respondents  to  appoint  him  as  the  

Principal  of  the  Higher  Secondary  School.  

Challenging  the  said  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the  

Respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.41237  

of 2005 and the UPSC filed Writ Petition No.10771  

of 2006.   

7. Before the High Court it was the case of the  

U.P.S.C. that the name of Shri V. Ranganathan was  

not recommended for the post of Principal as his  

merit position in the Selection List did not bring  

him within the zone of consideration and since Shri  

7

N. Baskaran had the required teaching experience of  

10 years, he was recommended for appointment.  

 8. It was also the case of the U.P.S.C. that as  

far  as  Polytechnics  are  concerned,  after  the  

completion of the 10th standard, instead of joining  

the 11th standard, students join diploma courses,  

and, as such, duties at the Polytechnic level is  

equivalent  to  studies  at  the  Higher  Secondary  

level.   Whenever  there  was  necessity,  the  

Government had spared Shri Baskaran’s services to  

the Polytechnics and he had worked at the Higher  

Secondary  level  in  the  said  Polytechnics.   The  

further case of the Respondent No.1 was that having  

obeyed the order passed by the Government from time  

to time, the same could not be placed against him  

when  it  came  to  computing  the  period  of  his  

service.  

8

9. In addition to the above, it was also pointed  

out that the U.P.S.C. had produced the selection  

list in which the Petitioner herein has been ranked  

at number 10 in the reserve list and even in the  

reserve  list  there  were  three  more  candidates  

placed above him. The High Court allowed the two  

Writ Petitions Nos.41237 of 2005 and 10771 of 2006  

and the other pending applications were closed.   

10. The stand on behalf of the U.P.S.C. appears to  

have  been  strongly  opposed  on  behalf  of  the  

Petitioner  herein.  It  was  contended  that  if  the  

interpretation given by the Tribunal with regard to  

experience, as indicated in the advertisement, is  

to  be  accepted,  the  service  rendered  in  Higher  

Secondary Schools and also at the Higher Secondary  

level, would have to be taken into consideration  

for determining the period of qualifying service.   

9

11. Appearing for the Petitioner herein, Mr. K.V.  

Vishwanathan,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  submitted  

that the findings of the High Court were in places  

at variance with the findings of the Tribunal in  

computing  the  years  of  experience  at  the  Higher  

Secondary  level  which  Shri  N.  Baskaran  had  

acquired.  It was pointed out that it was the High  

Court’s own finding that since the system of Higher  

Secondary Schools is in vogue only in some States,  

it would be totally impossible to go by the term  

“Higher Secondary School” which was not in use in  

the other States.

12. According  to  Mr.  Vishwanathan,  this  was  a  

classic case for issuance of writ in the nature of  

quo-warranto since undoubtedly the Respondent No.1  

had  usurped  the  right  of  the  Petitioner  to  be  

appointed  as  Principal  of  the  Higher  Secondary  

School in question.  It was also urged that the  

10

very procedure adopted for selection of candidates  

to fill up the three vacant posts of Principal was  

invalid  and  the  Petitioner  was  entitled  to  be  

considered for appointment to the post of Principal  

of one of the three Schools on the basis of his  

qualifications and experience.  

13. Mr.  Gurukrishna  Kumar  and  Ms.  Binu  Tamta,  

learned Advocates appearing for the Respondent No.1  

and the U.P.S.C. respectively, both contended that  

there  are  different  grades  of  teachers  in  the  

Higher  Secondary  Schools/Senior  Secondary  

Schools/Inter  Colleges  in  the  country  which  

comprise of Classes VI to XII and not all teachers  

teach  students  in  Classes  XI  and  XII  which  

constitute the core classes of the Higher Secondary  

Schools.  It  was  further  contended  that  the  

interpretation of experience of 10 years teaching  

in Higher Secondary Schools was meant to comprise  

11

such teaching experience of students belonging to  

the  Higher  Secondary  Section  for  the  purpose  of  

short listing of candidates for selection to the  

post.  

14. Having  considered  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf of the respective parties, we see no reason  

to  differ  with  the  views  expressed  by  the  High  

Court  regarding  the  work  experience  of  the  

Respondent No.1 at the Higher Secondary level which  

was found to be 10 years and 4 months, whereas the  

period of qualifying service was 10 years.  The  

methodology adopted by the respondents in arriving  

at such finding is fair and transparent and also  

reasonable.  Furthermore, as has been pointed out  

by the High Court, the Petitioner herein had not  

even prayed for quashing of the appointment issued  

to the Respondent No.1 on 13th August, 2004, and his  

prayer  in  the  Original  Application  before  the  

12

Tribunal was limited to a direction being given to  

the  U.P.S.C.  to  appoint  him  to  the  post  of  

Principal  in  a  Higher  Secondary  School  in  

Pondicherry  under  the  Scheduled  Caste  category  

instead of the Respondent No.1 herein.  In addition  

to the above, no opportunity was also given to the  

Secretary,  Education  Department,  Government  of  

Pondicherry, to answer the questions which had been  

raised by the Petitioner before setting aside the  

appointment of the Respondent No.1 herein.  

15. However, what is of cardinal importance is the  

fact that from the selection list produced by the  

U.P.S.C.,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Petitioner  

herein had been placed at rank No.10 in the reserve  

list and even in the reserve list there were three  

more candidates placed above him.  Considering the  

same, in agreement with the views expressed by the  

High Court, we are also not inclined to interfere  

13

with  the  order  impugned  and  the  Special  Leave  

Petition  is,  accordingly,  dismissed,  but  without  

any order as to costs.  

     …………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (A.K. PATNAIK)

New Delhi Dated:16.09.2010

14