V. B.PRASAD versus MANAGER, P.M.D.U.P. SCHOOL AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-·., 
V.B.PRASAD 
A 
v. 
MANAGER, P.M.D.U.P. SCHOOL AND ORS 
APRIL I 0, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
> 
~ 
Service Law: 
Promotion/Appointment-Eligibility condition-Held: Must be satisfied c 
before a person is considered for promotion/appointment in respect of a 
particular post-Kera/a Education Rules-rr.45 and 44-Kera/a Education 
; 
Act. 
Promotion/Appointment-To post of Headmaster in primary school-
Two contenders, Respondent No.2 and No.6-Respondent No.2 appointed D 
Challenge by Respondent No.6 upheld by Single Judge of High Court-
''°"-i 
Appellant who was never considered for the said post and was not a party 
in any of the proceedings between Respondent No.2 and 6 filed intra-Court 
appeal contending that he should have been considered for the post of 
Headmaster-Held: Appellant was nowhere in the picture at the relevant 
time-At his instance, the Court cannot embark upon a larger question E 
which had not been raised for its consideration directly-What cannot be 
done directly, cannot be done indirectly-Kera/a Education Rules-rr. 45 
and 44-Kera/a Education Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Note appended to a statutory provision-
-+. 
Held: To be read in context of the substantive provision and not in derogation F 
} 
thereof 
The primary school in question is a minority institution within the 
meaning of clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. For the post of 
Headmaster in the school there were two contenders, viz. Respondent No. 2 G 
and Respondent No.6. Rule 45 of the Kerala Education Rules framed under 
the Kerala Education Act stipulated the eligibility conditions viz. essential 
qualifications/teaching experience required for the post of Headmaster. 
-..-\ 
Respondent No.2 was appointed which was challenged by Respondent No.6 by 
filing writ petition. The latter claimed preferential right of appointment vis-
1077 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
' 
A a-vis the former. The petition was allowed by a Single Judge of High Court. 
Appellant, a Drawing teacher in the school, was not a party in any of 
the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2 or 6 and his case was never 
considered by Management of the school or by the Government or by the Court. 
He filed an intra-Court appeal, contending that he should have been considered 
B for appointment in the post of Headmaster, as he had the requisite 
qualifications therefore. According to him, being a specialist teacher, his case 
came within the purview of the note appended to Rule 45. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
C whether Appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of 
Headmaster. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Appellant joined the school as a Drawing teacher on 
17.07.1978 and has been working on a regular basis only with effect from 
D 02.06.1980. While discharging his duties as a teacher, Appellant applied for 
and granted study leave for higher studies for two years with effect frorr 
01.06.1991. He remained on leave upto 28.02.1993. He was not a candidate 
who was considered for appointment to the post of Headmaster. He indisputably 
gave consent for appointment of Respondent No.2. His case, therefore, never 
E fell for consideration either by the management of the school or by the 
Government or by the High Court. (Para 8) (1081-G-H; 1082-A-B] 
2. For the time being, it may be assumed that in view of fact that he had 
also acquired the qualification of B.Ed. in April 1980, his case also could be 
considered in terms of Rule 45; although it is well-settled principles of law 
F that the note appended to a statutory provision or the subordinate legislation 
must be read in the context of the substantive provision and not in derogation 
thereof. Five years' teaching experience for appointment to the post of 
Headmaster was a sine qua non. Such teaching experience was to be 'teaching 
experience' and not a deemed teaching experience. (Para 10) (1083-C) 
G 
Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh and Ors., (2005) 6 
SCC 776 and A. P. SRTC v. STATILR (2001) AP 1, referred to 
3. Appellant was on study leave for the period 01.06.1991to28.02.1993 .. 
During the said period, he was not teaching. He did not gain any teaching 
H experience during the said period. If the said period is excluded for the purpose 
·'f.-. 
V.B. PRASAD v. MANAGER, P.M.D.U.P. SCHOOL 
1079 
of computing teaching experience as envisaged under Rule 45 of the Rules

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