S.K KUSHWAHA versus D.K. JOSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 18-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
-
- "' 
S.K KUSHWAHA 
A 
v_ 
D.K. JOSHI AND ORS. 
MARCH 18, 2002 
[S.N. PHUKAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, HJ 
B 
Service Law: 
Selection-Kurukshetra University Ordinance XVI-Selection to the post 
of Principal of College of Education-Academic qualification prescribed-- C 
Candidate possessing doctorate qualification with adequate teaching experience 
and not the requisite qualification of MEd or B.Ed-However, Executive 
Council approved the appointment and appointed/candidate-Appointment 
challenged-High Court set aside the appointment-Whether B.Ed or MEd 
qualification is an essential requirement and could be relaxed-On appeal D 
held, one of the two qualifications under Clause (a) i.e. MA_ (Education) with 
REd or Masters' degree in any subject with MEd as well as the qualification 
in Clause (b)_ viz. M Phil Degree or a recognised degree beyond the Masters' 
level or published research level work are necessary-However, under Clause 
(c) when candidate having both the qualifications is not available or is found 
unsuitable, candidate ji1/fllling the qualifications under Clause (a) could be E 
selected-On facts since the ca;,didate lacked one of the qualifications, namely, 
MEd he cannot take protection under Clause (c)-However, Executive Council 
was empowered to relax the qualification-Order of High Court is set aside 
and matter remilled back for fresh consideration 
Kurukshetra University advertised for the post of Principal in the F 
College of Education. The qualifications prescribed by Ordinance XVI for 
the post is either M.A. (Education) with B. Ed. or Masters' degree in any 
subject with M.Ed. under Clause (a) and M. Phil degree or a recognised degree 
beyond Masters' level or published research level work under Clause (b). Both 
the appellant and respondent No. 1 applied and were called for interview. G 
Appellant possessed doctorate qualification with adequate teaching experience 
and not the requisite qualification of M.Ed./B.Ed. Executive Council 
considered him eligible to appear for selection in view of relaxation provision 
and approved the selection of appellant as Principal. About one year later, 
respondent No. I filed representations to the University questioning the 
533 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002) 2 S.C.R. 
._ A selection and appointment of the appellant Respondent No.1 then filed a writ 
petition which was disposed of directing the representation of respondent No. 
1 to be considered before confirming the appellant. However, University 
rejected the representation on the ground that the case of the appellant was 
covered under the relaxation clause, as opined by the Executive Council in 
its meeting held on 22.9.1993. Respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition 
B for quashing the decision of the Executive Council dated 22.9.1993 and also 
the rejection of the representation. High Court set aside the selection and 
appointment of the appellant Hence the present appeals. 
The question which arose for consideration was whether B.Ed. or M.Ed. 
C qualification is an essential and indispensable requirement for selection to the 
post of Principal of University College of Education, whether such requirement 
could be relaxed and whether factually there was relaxation, and if so, by a 
competent body or authority. The correct interpretation of Clause (c) to Note 
II of Ordinance XVI also fell for consideration. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the. Court 
HELD: 1. Reading qualifications prescribed in sub-clauses (a) and (b) 
of Note lI of Ordinance XVI for the post of Principle in the recognised Colleges 
_, 
of Education as alternative qualifications and the qualifications in (b) 
>--:, 
prevailing over those in (a) ignores the conjunctive expression 'and'. There 
E is no compelling reason to read the word 'and' as 'or'. The reasonable and 
harmonious way of construing sub-clause (c) is that in order to get eligibility 
for selection to the post of Principal, one of the two academic qualifications 
under sub-clause (a) i.e. M.A. (Education) with B.Ed. or Masters' Degree in 
any subject with M.Ed. is necessary. In addition thereto, the qualification in 
(b) should also be fulfilled in the normal course. That is to say, a candidate in 
F addition to the academic qualification in sub-clause (a) should have M. Phil 
Degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published a 
research-level work. However, in case such a candidate having both the 
qualifications is not available or is o

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