DR. M.S. MUDHOL AND ANR. versus SHRI S.D. HALEGKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 13-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. M.S. MUDHOL AND ANR. 
v. 
SHRI S.D. HALEGKAR AND ORS. 
JULY 13, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Laches--Principal appointed in a private aided school not fulfilling 
essential qualification,---Lapse of 9 years before moving cowt-Held, 13 years 
have elapsed, and infraction of statutory rule not grave enough to wa1rant 
inteiferenc,,-..Quo warranto. 
A 
B 
c 
Respondent 1 was appointed as Principal of the Delhi Kannada 
Senior Secondary School in 1981. In 1990, petitioners who are members of 
the teaching staff of the school moved the High Court for a writ of quo 
warranto against respondent 1 which was dismissed inter alia on the ground 
oflaches. 
]) 
For respondent 1, it was contended that no writ of quo wa"anto could 
be issued against the school which was managed by a private organisation, 
n~r respondent 1 who was its employee; and that there had been a delay 
of 9 years. Further, respondent 1 was duly qualified since he had an M.Ed E 
with a II division, even if he had a third class degree in M.A. - the essential 
qualification being a II division in a post-graduate degree course. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided, F 
is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself 
impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even 
assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when 
the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a 
long period of 9 years when the court was moved and today about 13 years G 
have elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifica-
tions of the inc.nmbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave 
taking into consideration all other relevant facts. [119-H; 120-A-B] 
2. M.Ed II division is not equivalent to M.A. II division. The latter 
is an academic qualification with wholetime course, spread over 2 years H 
115 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A while the former is a professional qualification, part-time course spread 
over one year. (118-D] 
The statutory rule requires a II division in the academic Master's 
Degree, and the Teaching Degree is no substitute for it. (118-E] 
B 
The Director of Education had committed a clear error of law in 
approving the academic qualificatious when he was not so qualified. 
(120-C] 
3. As regards teaching experience, at least on date, when bis removal 
from the post of Principal was sought, he bad the requisite experience. 
C 
(119-D] 
4. There is nothing on record to show that be had projected bis 
qualifications to be other than what he possessed. Illegality, if any, was 
committed by the Selection Committee and the Director of Education. It 
would be inadvisable to disturb respondent 1 from his post at this late 
D stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. 
(119-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (CJ 
No.16256 of 1992. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.1991 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.W. No. 2246 of 1990. 
G .L. Sanghi and Snrya Kant for the Appellant. 
Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, AK. Sen and R.N. Narasim-
F hamurthy, S.S. Javeli, Ms. Indira Sahney and M.T. George for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The controversy in the present petition relates to the eligibility of the 
G Ist respondent to occupy the post of the Principal of the Delhi Kannada 
Senior Secondary School which is being run in New Delhi. The !st respon-
dent was appointed as the Principal of the school in the year 1981. The 
statutory rules prevalent at the relevant time prescribed the essential 
qualification for the said post as follows: 
H 
(i) Master's Degree with at least Ilnd Division from a recognised 
DR. MUDHOL v. S.D. HALEGKAR 
117 
university or equivalent. 
(ii) A Degree in Teaching from a recognised university or 
equivalent. 
(iii) Experience of 10 years' teaching as a Vice-Principal/P.G.T. 
(Post-graduate Teacher) in a Higher Secondary School or Inter-
College. 
The condition with regard to the Ilnd Division was relaxable in the case of 
the candidates belonging to the same school and also in the case of the 
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates. The desirable qualifica-
tions were: 
(i) Experience in administrative charge of a recognised Higher 
Secondary School/Inter-College. 
(ii) Doctorate Degree. 
(iii) M.Ed. Degree fro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.