P. RAGHAVA KURUP AND ANR. versus V. ANANTHAKUMARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 22-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.-
A 
P. RAGHA VA KURUP AND ANR. 
1 
,( -
v. 
V. ANANTHAKUMARI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND H.S. BED!, JJ.] 
Kera/a Education Act, 1958: 
c 
Kera/a Education Rules, 1959-Rules I and 43B-Language teacher 
in aided schools-Appointment of-Non-teaching staff-Eligibility-Held, 
yes provided he has the prescribed qualifications and there is no teacher 
eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under these Rules. 
, Interpretations of Statues: 
D 
Harmonious construction-When object sought to be achieved can be 
achieved without violation to any rule then ii should be so read 
Particular provisions-Will get priority over the general law if it does 
not run counter to the general law. 
E 
Legal Maxims; 
"Generalia specialibus non derogant" means, particular provision 
will override the general provision. 
F 
.. Service condition of aided school teachers is regulated by Chapter XIV 
of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the 
Rules") framed under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be 
referred to as "the Act"). Rule I empowers the-Managers of the Private 
Schools to make appointment of a candidate who possesses prescribed 
qualification. Rule 43B deals with appointment of a language teacher and is 
G a general rule, however, Rule 43B especially deals with the appointment of a 
particular category i.e. language teacher in such schools. Notes-I to Rule I 
contemplates that members of the non-teaching staff shall also be eligible for 
1-
appointment as a teacher provided he has the prescribed qualifications and 
there is no teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post 
I -
H 
1058 
Y· 
, 
P. RAGHAVA KUR UP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI 
1059 
-
) 
~ 
under these Rules meaning thereby that non teaching staff like Oerks, Peons, A 
Sweepers and other staff if they possess necessary qualifications they would 
also be eligible for being appointed as teacher provided there is no teacher 
eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under these rules. 
Respondent, working as a Peon in the Hig~ School, possessed all necessary 
qualification for being considered for appointment as High School Assistant B 
(Hindi). On account of retirement, a vacancy in High School Assistant (Hindi) 
arose in the School and since other in cum bents in the School were not eligible 
and respondent alone was eligible for being considered for appointment to 
'< 
the said post, therefore, she made a request to management to consider her 
-
case but the Management did not accede to her request and rejected the same 
and instead the appellant was appointed which was approved by the District c 
Education Officer. The appeal filed before the Director of Public instructions 
---
was allowed and the appointment of appellant herein was set aside Single Judge 
allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and quashed the order of 
the Director of Public Instructions. Aggrieved against the order passed by 
Single Judge, the respondent filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench. D 
The Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and held that the 
respondent was qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant (Hindi). 
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present appeal was filed. It was 
contended by the appellant that when there is general rule which lays down 
that if persons mentioned in Rule 43B (I) are not available then reading alone 
with Note (2) appended to Rule 438, appointment can be made from open E 
market on the principle that general provisions would prevail over the 
particular rule. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
..,._ 
HELD I.I. That from a harmonious reading of the note (I) under Rule F 
I with Rule 438 of The Kerala Education Rules, 1959 it transpires that if 
persons mentioned in the categories mentioned in Rule 438 are not available, 
then any non-teaching staff who possesses all necessary qualifications being 
available, can be considered for appointment of Language teacher. jPara 4) 
Delhi Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Raj iv Anand & Ors., [2004) II G 
• 
sec 625, relied upon. 
_j 
2.1. The maxim, general principle of " Generalia specialibus non 
derogant" means, particular provision will override the general provision. 
[Para 5] [1064-G] 
H 
/ 
~ 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S. C.R. 
.;;. 
A 
Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dea & Ors., 
.._ 
[1966[ 3 S.C.R. 663, relied upon . 
. Shrimati !lira

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