THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. versus SHAIK MOULA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 22-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
c
TI-IE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTiON
AND DISTRICT RECl~UITMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
v.
SHAii<. MOULA AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 22, 2006
[ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH i> ANT A, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment of primary school teacher-Dispute if Respondent No. I
possessed requisite qualification-Courts below with reference to a
Government Order held that it indicated that Respondent No. I possessed
equivalent qualification-Propriety of-Held, improper since there is no
such indication in the Government Order-Courts below erred in making
D inferential conclusion, that too without appreciating the nature of the
controversy.
Respondent No. 1 filed application for appointment as a primary school
teacher in the Hindi subject. The application was rejected on the ground that .
Respondent No. I did not possess the requisite qualification. According to '
E the Appellants, Respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite qualification of
TCH or any qualification equivalent to it and had only passed an examination
equivalent to Teacher Training Certificate (TTC). However, the Tribunal as
well as the High Court held that bare reading of the Government's order dated
24/26th August, 1974 in~icated that Respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite
F qualification inasmuch t.he qualification possessed by him was equivalent to
TCH. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Tribunal was really confused as to what was the subject
G matter of dispute which is clear from its observations. The High Court
proceeded on the basis as if the Government's order dated 24/26th August,
1974 made the position clear that the qualification possessed by respondent
no. 1 was equivalent to TCH. There is really no such indication. Whether a
particular qualification is equivalent to another has to be specifically indicated.
That has not been done. Inferential conclusion, that too without appreciating
I!
318
DEPUTI' DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY"· SHAIK MOULA IPASAYAT. J.1. 319
the nature of the controversy, makes decisions of the Tribuna.l a~ the High A
Court vulnerable. They are accordingly set aside. (320-E~F; 32t-A~BI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : ~ivil Appeal No. 5152 of2006: .
From the Judgment amd Order dated 16-3-2004 of the High Court of
Kamataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 2768/2003 (S-KA T).
B
Snjay R. Hedge for the Appellants.
S. Nanda Kumar, A. Santha Kumar, Mayil Samy, Ms. ftenuka 'Devi and
V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJITPASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench
c
of the Kamataka High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the appellants. D
Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by the Kamataka
Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal').
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
Respondent no. I filed an application before the Tribunal under Section E
19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') praying to
quash the selection made by the appellants and for a direction to include his
name for selection under category 118 (reserved category) and to issue order
of appointment as primary school teacher in the Hindi subject. The applicant-
respondent no. 1 herein had filed an application for appointment as primary
school Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Bangalore Rural District. The same was F
rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. It
was pointed out that the requisite qualifications as indicated in the Notification
No. Cl .Pra.Sha.Shi.Ne/01/2001-02 dated 8.9.2001 are as follows:
"I.Must have passed PUC and TCH or equivalent examinations
* But the candidates who had taken admission to TCH course prior
to 1989 will be eligible if they have passed SSLC and TCH or equivalent
examination".
G
According to the appellants, the respondent no. I did not have the
qualification of TCH. He had passed the examination which is equivalent to H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A Teacher Training Certificate (TTC). The Tribunal held that the respondent no.
I possessed the requisite qualification. For that purpose reliance was placed
on proceedings of the Government of Karnataka (Order No. EF.43 PHN 72
Bangalore, Dated: the 24/26th August, 1974).
Challenging order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed before the
B High Cou

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