RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1131 · Decided: 02-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
A 
v. 
KAILA KUMAR PALIW AL AND ANR. 
MAY2, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Promotion-To the Post of Headmaster, Secondary 
Schools-Entitlement of Teacher Grade Ill, initially appointed as Laboratory 
Assistant-Held: Such teachers not entitled to promotion to the post of C 
Headmaster-In order to be considered for promotion to a higher post, 
person must possess essential qualificativn-Such qualification cannot be 
relaxed even by the Selection Committee in absence of express power for the 
same-Determination of criteria for qualification would depend on the rules 
operating in thefield-Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970-Rajasthan 
Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971. 
D 
The respondents were initially appointed as Laboratory Assistants. They 
had also worked on the post of Teacher Grade III. Their cases for recruitment 
to the post of Headmaster of the Secondary Schools were not considered by 
the appellant-Commission. Their Writ Petitions seeking direction to call them 
for interview was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. In intra-court E 
appeal, Division Bench of High Court allowed the plea of the respondents. 
In appeals to this Court, the question for consideration was as to whether 
the experience of respondents as Laboratory Assistant and Teacher Grade III 
entitled them to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Posts of Head Master are governed by Rajasthan Educational 
Service Rules, 1970. Five years' teaching experience is required for 
consideration for appointment to the post of Head Master which in turn is G 
referable to teaching in certain capacity on certain categories or posts. 
Therefore, those who had been holding posts of Teacher Grade III with the 
minimum educational qualification of Matriculation or Secondary Education 
with a certificate in training would not be entitled to teaching in secondary 
classes or higher classes in view of the scope and purport of both 1970 Rules 
1131 
H 
1132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A as also Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971, the 
Commission was correct in its view. 
~ 
(Paras 13, 14 and l 7) 11137-C, D, E; 1138-A-B) 
1.2. In the instant case, the rules are absolutely clear and explicit. Not 
~1 
B 
only the posts of Head Master is governed by a separate set of rules, the posts 
ofTeacher Grade lil provides for a promotional avenue to the posts of Teacher 
Grade II which in turn provides for promotion to the other grades of teacher. 
It is, thus, inconceivable that experience gained by a person holding the post 
of Teacher Grade Ill governed by the subordinate services rules would be 
entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master although 
c experience of teaching in particular classes is relevant therefor. 
(Paras 26 and 27) (1140-F, G) 
A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004) 7 SCC 
112, relied on. 
D 
State of Rajasthan v. Manmohar Singh and Ors., [2003) 1 CDR 839, 
disapproved. 
2.1. A person in order to be considered for promotion to a higher post 
must possess the essential qualification. If he does not do so, he cannot be 
considered therefor. Even the selection committee in absence of any express 
E .power conferred upon it cannot relax such essential qualification. 
(Para 20) [1138-D) 
J.C. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1990) 2 SCC 189 
and Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and Ors., 
[2001) 8 sec 532, referred to. 
F 
2.2. Recruitment to a post must be made strictly in terms of the Rules 
operating in the field. Essential qualification must be possessed by a person 
as on the date of issuance of the notification or as specified in the rules and 
only in absence thereof, the qualification required till the last date of filing of 
G 
the application would be the relevant date. (Para 21) [1138-E, F) 
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., [1997) 4 
~ 
SCC 18; UP. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Anr. v. Alpana, 
., 
[1994) 2 SCC 723 and Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) v. Director, Punjab 
Instructions, Punjab and Anr., (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 706, referred to. 
H 
2.3. Even where there exists a provision for relaxation, for example 
.... 
.~ 
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'· KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL [S.B. SINHA, I.) 
\ \33 
relaxation in age, the same must be strict

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