PRAMOD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.

Citation: [2015] 15 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 29-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 15 S.C.R. 131 
PRAM OD 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 14735 of 2015) 
DECEMBER 29, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition 
A 
B 
of Service) Rules, 1981: r.3- Promotion- Post of Principal-
Appellant-writ petitioner senior most lecturer -
Post of C 
Principal fell vacant - Another person appointed -
Writ 
petition -
Pending that advertisement issued invjting 
applications for direct recruitment to the post of Principal -
Plea of appellant that post of Principal in a private polytechnic 
has to be filled up necessarily by promotion by virtue of r. 3 -
D 
High Court disposed of writ petition by holding that appellant 
was entitled to all benefit as officiating Principal but did not 
enter into the controversy as to who should be selected and 
appointed as regular Principal - Appellant filed another writ 
petition claiming promotion to the post of Principal ulr. 3(3) -
E 
High Court disposed of writ petition allowing the Education 
Society running the polytechnic to approach the Director of 
Technical Education for permission to issue fresh 
advertisement - Director rejected the appellant's prayer 
holding that post is to be filled up by direct recruitment - Writ F 
petition by appellant for quashing Director's order and 
directions to the concerned authorities to promote him- High 
Court decided against the appellant- On appeal, held: Sub-
rule (5) of r.3 permits direct recruitment only after obtaining 
prior permission of the competent Government Officer in a G 
situation where no suitable teacher possessing the prescribed 
qualifications is available for promotion as Head - Mode 
of appointment prescribed under the statutory r.3(3) could 
not have been ignored and since the appellant was 
admittedly the senior most member of the teaching staff H 
131 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
and in the earlier judgment was also held entitled to all the 
benefits of In-charge Principal of the polytechnic, he could 
not have been denied appointment by promotion to the vacant 
post of Principal - As regard the age of superannuation, 
even as a teacher the appellant's age of superannuation 
B could have been considered for extension upto 62 years if 
steps were taken for the same in due course -Appellant was 
not promoted due to erroneous order of Director otherwise 
he would not have superannuated before 65 years or in any 
case 62 years- Therefore, in the interest of justice, authorities 
c are directed to immediately reinstate the appellant and also 
appoint him by promotion to the post of Principal -
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of 
Service) Regulation Act, 1977-All India Council for Technical 
Education Act, 1987 - s. 23 r/w s. 1 O(i) and (v) - Education. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Principal, Head of Department, 
Lecturer and Workshop Superintendent in Government 
Polytechnic and Equivalent Institutes (Recruitment) 
E Rules, 2012 will not apply to private aided polytechnic 
such as the respondent's polytechnic. As a result, there 
is no other Statutory Act or Rule to take away the force 
of Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules which requires the 
management of the polytechnic, which is covered by 
F the definition of the 'School' under the MEPS Act, to fill 
up the post of the Head of Institution, i.e., the Principal 
by appointing the senior most member of the teaching 
staff in accordance with the guidelines laid down in 
. Schedule 'F' from amongst the teachers employed in 
the school. The respondent-polytechnic is the only 
G polytechnic run by the Management. Schedule 'F' to the 
Rules prescribes only the guidelines for fixation of 
seniority in different schools. The appellant is senior 
most teacher in the polytechnic. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 
H permits direct recruitment only after obtaining prior 
PRAM OD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
133 
permission of the competent Government Officer in a A 
situation where no suitable teacher possessing the 
prescribed qualifications is available for promotion as 
Head. [Para 12] [142-B·E] 
2. The High Court has erred in law in holding that 
the mode of appointment by promotion under Rule 3(3) B 
of the MEPS Rules cannot be applied to a polytechnic 
although it is a school because there is no separate 
qualification prescribed for a polytechnic in sub-rule(1) 
of Rule 3. The said sub-rule contains the qualifications 
and appointment of He

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