V ALSALA KUMARI DEVI M. versus DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS.,.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 25-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V ALSALA KUMAR! DEVI M. 
-J-
v. 
DIRECTOR, HIGH~R SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS.,. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.) 
Service Law-Selection-By promotion-Post of HSST (Higher 
'I:-
c 
Secondary School Teacher)-Sought to be filled up by promotion of 
qualified HAS (High School Assistant)----G. Os prescribing qualifications 
and mode of selection-Both Appellant and 5th Respondent working 
as HAS, applied-Selection of 5th Respondent though Appellant was 
· senior~hallenge against-Held: Selection was based on extraneous/ 
irrelevant considerations-It was improper on part of Selection 
D Committee to take into account qualifications not prescribed in the 
G. Os. and ignore Appellant who was fully qualified as well as senior 
to 5th respondent. 
Words and Phrases- 'Suitability', 'Eligible '-Meaning of-In the 
E context of selection/appointment in service jurisprudence-Discussed 
In the Higher Secondary School in question, a post ofHSST (Higher 
Secondary School Teacher) fell vacant. ~ppellant as well as the 5th 
Respondent, both of whom were working as HAS (High School 
F Assistant) in the very same school at the relevant 'time, applied for 
appointment by promotion to the said post. 5th Respandent was 
appointed as HSST. AppeDant ftled writ petition contending thatthe 4th 
respondent (Manager) appointed 5th Respondent overlooking the 
seniority and eligibility of Appellant. High Court, however, upheld t~e 
G selection of 5th respondent. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
~" 
HELD: 1.1. Since the appellant was appointed as HSA w.e.f. 
13.07.1990 and the 5th respondent only from 20.6.1991, he is junior to 
H 
294 
V ALSALA KUMARI DEVI M.v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 
295 
SECONDARY EDUCATION 
the appellant in the category ofHSA. The particulars furnished clearly A 
show that the appellant possesses the requisite qualification for being 
considered for the post ofHSST. Government Order dated 27.6.1990 
prescribes the minimum qualification for the Higher Secondary School 
Teachers as second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject 
with B.Ed. The appellant having secured second class Master's degree B 
in History and B.Ed. Degree in English and History was fully qualified 
and eligible for appointment as HSST (History) in Humanities Group. 
[Para 9.1] [303-H; 304-A, B, C] 
1.2. The Government Order dated 13.5.1998 makes it clear that C 
25% of vacancies in the post of HSST in the Government Higher 
Secondary Schools and Aided Higher Secondary Schools will be 
reserved for appointment from qualified High School Assistants and 
Primary School Teachers. It also prescribes that the remaining 75% 
vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment in the Aided Higher D 
Secondary Schools will be done by the Management and the selection 
of candidates for direct recruitment in Aided Higher Secondary Schools 
will be done by a Staff Selection Committee. [Para 9.2] [304-C, D, E] 
1.3. Government Order dated 27.6.1990 makes it clear that the 
selection of teachers will be subject to seniority and suitability and G.O. E 
dated 13.5.1998 specifically prescribes that the teachers appointed from 
General Education Subordinate Service will be treated as appointment 
by promotion. There is no dispute that the appellant is senior to 5th 
respondent. She is eligible and qualified for appointment by promotion 
to HSST. It is not the case of the Management that she is unsuitable F 
for promotion. [Para 10] (304-E, F, G] 
1.4. The expression "subject to seniority and suitability" occurring 
in G.O. dated 27.6.1990 does not mean the comparative assessment of 
suitability and it only means the suitability for the particular post and G 
!he suitability is related to the prescribed qualification and requisite 
experience. In view of the distinction between the appointment by 
promotion from General Education Subordinate Service and an 
appointment to the 75% vacancies ear-marked for direct recruitment, 
the finding arrived at by the Director, Higher Secondary School that H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
· A seniority is not the criterion for 'appointment by promotion to HSST' is 
erroneous and is not in terms of the Government Orders. Though in 
the order, it is stated that the 5th respondent is more suitable than the 
appellant, it has not been shown or indicated the reasons or grounds 
for arriving at such decision. [Para 11] (304-G, H; 305-A, BJ 
B 
1.5. The Director has mechanically ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.