LexB. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU versus DISTT. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU
~
v.
DISTI. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.
AUGUST 11, 1992
B
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHA1'1 AND
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
Special Rules /or Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service:
r
c
Service Law-Experience-Teache~Appoifltment as Telugu Pan-
dit-C/aim for the post of Head Mastel'-{!ualifications-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 Graduat~eld period of appointment as Telugu
Pandit shall be counted for reckoning total experience.
~
D
Precedent-Need to follow.
Under Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educa-
tional Service, the minimum qualifications fixed for the post of Head
Master is ten years experience as B.T. Assistant or Language Pandit after
E
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 Eduction 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
_...
F
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 v~cant.
_,
1
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
G 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,
';-r---
HELD: The earlier judgments of the High Court interpreting the
H rule in favour of Language Pandits prevailed in the State for a consider-
'71l')
\
~
LAKSHMIPATHI v. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (SHARMA, J.]
783
+
ably long period. The said principle has become settled and must have A
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 decisions. Accordingly, the appellant must be treated
to be fully qualified for the post of the Head Master and his case should
be ~onsidered for appointment. [784F-G, 785-D]
B
P. Subba11nan v. The Director of School Education and Anr., : Writ
Petition No. 4470 of 1982 decided on 21.2.1983; P.S. Chandrasekhar v. 17ie
Director of School Education, Madras and Ors., Writ Petition No. 7367 of
1983 decided on 18.10.1985, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2944 of c
-
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.91 of the Madras High
)-
Court in W.A. 737/91.
D
V. Krishnamurthy and V. Balachandra for the Appellant.
S. Ba:lakrishnan, R.N. Keshwani and R. Mohan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
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 F
Bachelor of Education in 1983. The post of Head Master fell vacant. on
r.
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 appeaJ by a short order by a Division Bench
which is under challenge in the present appeal.
G
3. The main ground for holding that the appellant was not quaJified
~
for the post of Head Master in 1986 is based upon the minimum qualifica-
tion 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:-
H
~
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992] 3 S.C.R.
A
"(iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten years as B.T.
-~
Assistant or Pandit in a Secondary School!fraining SchooV
Higher Secondary Schoo~ after obtaining a teaching degree,
recognised by the Director of School Education;"
B
According to the respondents, the above condition requires to have
ten years experience as a Pandit, after obtaining a teaching degree, reeog-
nised by the Director of School Education. It is said that since the appellant
acquired the degree only in 1983, his expeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.