STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus TARA SINGH SHAHI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 17-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
TARA SINGH SHAH! 
APRIL 17, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Punjab Educatio11al Se1vice (College Cadre) (Class I) Rule, 1976: Rule 
9(i) read with Appe11dix B-University affiliated p1ivate college take11 over by 
State--P1i11cipal absorbed in Service as se11ior-most Lecturer toms of gift 
C deerl-!11cumbent 11ot possessing requisite qualification-Whether entitled to 
appoi11tme11t to the post of Pri11cipal i11 Government college-Held, 
no-Qualification prcsoibed by Unive1'·ity for the post i11 p1ivate affiliated 
co/lege,,-..Whether relevant-Held, no. 
Rule 9(i) of the Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class 
D I) Rules, 1976 bars a person from being appointed to a post in the Service 
by direct recruitment unless he possesses the educational c1ualifications, 
professional training and other c1ualifications as specified in Appendix B. 
Appendix B laid do\111 M.A. First Division or high Second Division (55% 
marks) in the relevant subject as the qualification with 8 years' teaching 
E 
experience for appointment to the Service. 
The respondent was Principal of a private college affiliated to the 
Guru Nanak Dev University. The said college was taken over by the 
appellant State GoYernment under a gift dee_d dated 11th July 1983 specifi-
cally providing that only those members of staff who possessed requisite 
F 
qualifications would be absorbed as new entrants and that the Principal 
would be brought in as senior-most Lecturer and not as Principal. The 
respondent took over as senior-most Lecturer in the college on 11th July 
1983 in pursuance of the gift deed and has been working as such. On his 
writ petition filed on 11th January 1988 the High Court directed the 
G appellant State to absorb as Principal. 
It was contended for the appellant State that the respondent as 
member of the Managing Committee of the College, was present in the 
meeting in which the taking over of the college was approved on the terms 
set out in the gift deed, and therefore, he cannot claim the post of Principal 
H 
of the college. It was further pointed ont since the respondent was M.A, 
490 
I 
STATE v. T.S. SHAHJ 
491 
Second Division with 52o/o marks, he \Vas not lJUalified to be appointed to A 
the post of Principal. 
Allo\\ing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The respondent was not 11ualified under the Rules for 
appointment to the post of Principal of the college since he 'vas M.A. 
B 
Second Division lvith 52 per cent marks. He could not, therefore1 legally 
clain1 such appoitment, nor was it possible for the High Court to have 
issued a Mandamus that the respondent be appointed or absorbed on that 
post. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which contain the Rule of 
Equality do not envisage that a person who is not qualified for appoint-
C 
n1ent can still claim such appointment merely on the basis of Fundamental 
Rights available under Articles 14 and 16. He cannot, in fact, invoke the 
provisions of those articles as he has first to posses the essential qualifica-
tion before invoking the Rule of Equality. The finding of the Single Judge 
of the High Court that the respondent possessed the requisite 11ualification 
is, therefore, erroneous. The Division Bench also was in error in confirm-
ing that finding. [ 497 ·E·H] 
2. The respondent could not be deemed, by virtue of the University 
circular dated 6th February 1981 laying down qualification for appoint· 
1nent to the post of Principal in affiliated colleges, to posseSs the requisite 
qualification. The Government took over the college in 1983 and had 
already prescribed the qualifications for the posts of lecturers and Prin-
cipal in the Government colleges by Rules made under Article 309 of the 
Constitution. Appointments and promotions have therefore to be made 
strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in these Rules and not 
D 
E 
in any other manner. [498-A-B] 
F 
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Dev Dutt Kaushal & 01"., [1995] 4 Supp. 
SCC 784, JT (1 ~95) 6 SC 225 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No.1507 of G 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order 24.1.95 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 1264 of 1992. 
P.P. Rao, G.K. Bansal and Manoj Swarup for the Appellants. 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ996] SUPP.! S.C.R. 
A 
J.S. Khehar and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Rc,pondenl. 
The .I udgment of the Court was delivered hy 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. : Guru Nanak College at Gurd

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