The Deputy Director of Public Instruction and District Recruitment Authority & Ors. v. Shaik Moula and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Lokeswar Singh
Judgment Date: 2006-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s and the High Court’s conclusions are set aside. The Government order did not explicitly indicate equivalence to TCH; equivalence must be expressly indicated. There is no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal and High Court orders set aside; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Deputy Director of Public Instruction and District Recruitment Authority & Ors.

Respondents

Shaik Moula
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sanjay R. Hedge

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Nanda Kumar
• A. Santha Kumar
• Mayil Samy
• Ms. ftenuka 'Devi
• V.N. Raghupathy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns a challenge to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal’s and the Karnataka High Court’s interpretation of a Government order concerning qualification equivalence for appointing a primary school Hindi teacher. Respondent No. 1 Moula claimed qualification sufficed for appointment, arguing that his course work was equivalent to the required Teachers Training Certificate (TCH) through a Government order dated 24/26 August 1974. The Tribunal had held that he possessed the requisite qualification, and the High Court sustained that view, relying on the Government order to equate his qualifications with TCH. The appellants contended that the Government order does not explicitly indicate equivalence to TCH; equivalence must be expressly stated, and the controversy could not be decided on a mere inferential reading of the order. The Court highlighted the Tribunal’s confusion about the dispute’s subject matter and found that the High Court’s inference was unfounded since it did not scrutinize whether the order actually declared equivalence. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal’s and High Court’s decisions were set aside, with no order as to costs. The result clarifies that explicit indication of equivalence is required before treating qualifications as interchangeable for appointment purposes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that Respondent No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification. They contended that he did not have TCH or any qualification equivalent to it, having only passed an examination equivalent to a Teacher Training Certificate (TTC). Their core submission was that the Government order dated 24/26 August, 1974 does not expressly indicate equivalence to TCH, and thus the Tribunal’s conclusion based on that order was improper. Equivalence, if any, must be clearly indicated; inferential conclusions were not appropriate given the controversy’s nature. The decision of the Tribunal and the High Court rested on an assumption not supported by explicit language in the order, and therefore warranted interference by the apex court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that reading the Government order shows that the courses listed therein are to be treated as equivalent for the purpose of teaching Hindi in high school/secondary schools and training institutions, thereby making the qualification applicable for appointment to primary school posts. The respondents maintained that the Government order should be read to confer equivalence to TCH in the relevant educational context, justifying the Tribunal’s and HC’s conclusion that the applicant possessed the requisite qualification.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A TI-IE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTiON AND DISTRICT RECl~UITMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. _v._ SHAii<. MOULA AND ANR. ## B NOVEMBER 22, 2006 [ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH i> ANT A, JJ.] ## _Service Law:_ ## c _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 I! 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). Snjay R. Hedge for the Appellants. S. Nanda Kumar, A. Santha Kumar, Mayil Samy, Ms. ftenuka 'Devi and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. c > 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 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 applicantrespondent 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". 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 D 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 Court reiterating the stand that the qualification possessed by the respondent no. I was not equivalent to TCH but was equivalent to TTC. The plea was rejected holding that bare reading of the Government's order dated 24/26th August, 1974 indicated that the qualification possessed by the respondent no. I was equivalent to TCH. c Leaned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Tribunal and the High Court fell into grave error in coming to the conclusion that the qualification possessed was equivalent to TCH with reference to the Government's order dated 24/26th August, 1974. In· that order there is no indication even in the manner as decided by the Tribunal or the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that bare reading of the aforesaid order makes the position clear that the courses indicated in the Government order had to be treated as equivalent courses for the purpose of teaching Hindi in high school or secondary school and , training institutions. That being so, the qualification was applicable for the E purpose of appointment to the primary school. It is to be noted that the Tribunal was really confused as to what was the subject matter of dispute. It is clear from the following observation of the Tribunal: F G H "Undisputedly, the documents produced by the applicant demonstrate that he has passed SSLC in the year 1990 (Annexure - A2, is the Marks Card), PUC in the year 1993 (Annexure - 'A4' is the !\larks Card) and Hindi Uttama of Mysore Hindi Prachar Parishad (Annexure 'A4' is the Certificate). The applicant has not passed TCH. But his case is that a pass in Hindi Shikshana Praveen Pariksha of Kendriya Hindi Shikshana Manda! Agra is recognized by the Government of Karnataka as equivalent to TCH and as such the applicant satisfies the requirements of education qualification. _In the circumstances the only question is whether Hindi Shikshana Praveen Pariksha passed by the applicant is equivalent to Teachers Training Certificate?"_ (emphasis supplied) **DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY 1. SHAIK** ~iOULA **(PASAYAT. J.I 321** The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the Government's order A dated 24/26th August, 1974 made the position clear that the qualification possessed by respondent no. I 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 the nature of the controversy, makes decisions **B** of the Tribunal and the High Court vulnerable. They are accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs. B.B.B . Appeal allowed. ... .