DR. PRIT SINGH versus S.K. MANGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 02-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. PRIT SINGH 
A 
v. 
S.K. MANGAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 
[M.N. VENKATACHALlAH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Service-Appointment as a Principal of a recognised College by 
Managing Committee on 22.7.86-Qualifications prescribed amended on 
15.10.87-Approval by Vice Chancellor on 13.11.1987 w.e.f. 16.10.87.-
Legality of. 
C 
Universities-Appointment as a Principal of recognised College by 
Managing Committee on 22. 7.86-Qualijications prescribed amended on 
15.10.87-Approva/ by Vice Chancellor on 13.11.1987 w.e;f. 16.10.87-
Legality of. 
The post of Principal of a College was advertised on 30.6. 1986. After 
interview of the applicants, the appellant was selected. On 22.7.1986 he 
was appointed by the Managing Committee as the Principal. His appoint-
ment was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor, as the appellant did not 
fulfill the requisite qualifications for the post. 
The prescribed Qualifications were: (1) a consistently good 
academic record, (Ii) with first or high second class (SS% marks/grade B 
In the seven point scale) Master's Degree In any subject and (Iii) a Degree 
in Education of an Indian University or equivalent degree of foreign 
University. 
However appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor by his 
order dated 13.11.87, with effect from 16.10.1987, when the qualifications 
prescribed for principal were amended on lS.10.1987. 
D 
E 
F 
The respondent N o.l liled a writ application questioning the validity G 
or the appointment or the appellant on the ground that on the date of 
appointment, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the appoint-
ment or the appellant, against which the present appeal by special leave 
was filed. 
H 
337 
A 
B 
c 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
The appellant contended that he possessed the requisite qualifica-
tions prescribed for the post of Principal; that 'Master's Degree' included 
Masters Degree in Education (M.Ed.); that as the appellant secured 60% 
marks at the examination of M.Ed., it would be deemed that he was 
holding a Master's Degree haivng secured more than 55% of marks. 
The respondents submitted that if the appellant was not eligible for 
appointment in terms of the prescribed qualifications on the date he was 
appointed by the Managing Committee, subject to the approval of the 
Vice-Chancellor, then later he could not become eligible after the 
qualifications for the post were amended. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. The sole object of prescribing qualification that the 
candidate must have a consistently good academic record with first or 
high second class Master's Degree for ap11ointment to the post of a 
D Principal, is to select a most suitable person in order to maintain excel-
lence and standard of teaching in the institution apart from administra· 
lion. [343·B) 
1.02. When the qualifications required 'a consistently good academic 
E 
record with first or high second class (55% marks/grade B in the seven 
point scale) Master's Degree in any subject'; it shall mean an academic 
qualification like Master of Arts. The said requirement was prescribed 
with 'a consistently good academic record'. (342-EJ 
F 
G 
1.03. Master's Degree shall mean Degree of Master of Arts in any 
subject, is apparent also from the fact that apart from that degree the 
candidate was required to possess also "Degree in Education' which will 
mean B.Ed. or M.Ed. Normally if the expression 'Master's Degree' was to 
include even the Master's Degree in Education (M.Ed.) there was no 
necessity of prescribig the third requirement of a "Degree in Education". 
[342 F·G] 
1.04. A person having secured third division in M.A. who cannot be 
considered by any University even for the post of Lecturer, will not become 
qualified for being appointed as a Principal of any College, if later he 
secures a high second class marks in M.Ed. Examination by completing 
H a course of one year. (342-H, 343-A] 
DR. PRIT SINGH v. S.K. MANGAL [N.P. SINGH, J.] 
339 
1.05. In the present case there Is no dispute that in the Master of Arts A 
Examination, the appellant secured only 47 .1 % marks which is not even the 
second division. The appellant had not secured even second class marks in 
his Master of Arts Examination whereas the requirement was first or high 
second class (55%). The irresistible conclusion· is that on tbe relevant date 
tbe appellant did not posses

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.