JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat 1. Facts as revealed in the writ petition may be summarised briefly. The petitioner is a holder of B. Ed. and M. Ed. Degrees from Allahabad University. He was appointed as a Lecturer in Psychology and Education in the year 1957 in K. P. Intermediate Education College, Allahabad on the basis of holding a Post Graduate Degree in Education as prescribed under the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. On 30th June, 1989 the post of Principal for the said college fell vacant and the Committee of Management of the college by its resolution dated 30th June, 1989 made the petitioner incharge of Principal's post on adhoc basis because the petitioner was seniormost Lecturer in the college. The District Inspector of Schools also gave his approval by his letter dated 4-12-89. On 4-5-90 a communication is said to have been addressed by the Deputy Director of Education to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad enquiring about the qualification of the petitioner for holding the post of Principal. The petitioner was asked to send his qualification which he did. Thereafter, the Committee of Management was asked by the Deputy Director of Education to get the matter clarified from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of U. P. The Committee of Management is said to have received a similar reply from the U. P. Secondary Education Commission on 6-8-90. 2. Ultimately the petitioner is said to have received a communication from the Committee of Management on 31st August, 90 by which the petitioner has been directed to hand over the charge of principalship to the next Lecturer in the seniority list, The qualification for the post of Principal is prescribed under Appendix A to the Regulation framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The minimum qualification as given in the Appendix A for the post of Principal is trained M. A. or M. Sc. or M. Com. or M. Sc. (Agriculture) or any Post Graduate Degree by a body referred to in 1st Paragraph. The petitioner's contention is that the M. Ed. Degree held by him is a Post Graduate Degree equivalent to M. A. or M. Sc. and the same has been awarded to him by the Allahabad University. or M. Com. or M. Sc. (Agriculture) or any Post Graduate Degree by a body referred to in 1st Paragraph. The petitioner's contention is that the M. Ed. Degree held by him is a Post Graduate Degree equivalent to M. A. or M. Sc. and the same has been awarded to him by the Allahabad University. There is no doubt about the petitioner being a Post Graduate Degree holder as prescribed under Appendix A. Petitioner, besides holding a Post Graduate Degree has also training qualification being L. T. The petitioner is deprived of his right to hold the post of Principal on adhoc basis and may be deprived for consideration on permanent basis for the said appointment for reasons of mis-interpretation of the qualifications as mentioned in Appendix A. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 30th and 31st August, 1990 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and the President of the Committee of Management respectively. He prays for a writ of mandamus also directing the opposite party not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid two impugned orders and prays that he be considered for permanent appointment for the post of Principal. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that because he is M. Ed., therefore, he holds a Post Graduate Degree and is entitled to hold the post of Principal on adhoc basis and can be considered for the permanent appointment. There is no distinction anywhere in the Regulation or in the Intermediate Education Act about one year course or two year's course. The opinion given by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and any other authority is against the prescribed regulation. As a result of impugned orders, respondent no. 6 who is next in seniority to the petitioner is ordered to be appointed as Principal in place of the petitioner. Respondent no. 7 is also next senior ranking in seniority below respondent no. 6. About the petitioner's seniority, there is no doubt. The dispute is only about his qualification. It is respondent no. 6 who is contesting the writ petition. He was added respondent no. 6 to the writ petition. He has filed counter affidavit also and has refuted the allegations set up by the petitioner in his writ petition. 6. About the petitioner's seniority, there is no doubt. The dispute is only about his qualification. It is respondent no. 6 who is contesting the writ petition. He was added respondent no. 6 to the writ petition. He has filed counter affidavit also and has refuted the allegations set up by the petitioner in his writ petition. Other respondents have not filed the counter affidavit though time was granted to the Standing Counsel to file the same. 3. Respondent no. 6 has stated that appointment of the petitioner as Principal of K. P. Intermediate College, Allahabad has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad on the basis of a representation made by him because the petitioner did not have the minimum qualification as prescribed in Appendix A to the regulation framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Since the petitioner does not posses the minium qualification prescribed, therefore, he is not qualified for being appointed as Principal on adhoc basis or on permanent basis. It is further contended by respondent no. 6 that qualifications for being appointed as Principal which existed prior to the amendment in the year 1976 indicated that M. Ed. is not a Post Graduate Degree. The amended notification of the Appendix dated 9-12-76 make it amply clear that M. Ed. is a training course and cannot be treated as a Post Graduate Degree or equivalent to Post Graduate Degree. For being appointed as a Principal, a candidate must be trained as well as possessing the Post Graduate Degree, The expression "trained" has significance and the expression "trained" has been defined to include the 'possession of a Post Graduate Training qualification such as L. T., B. Ed., B. T. M. Ed. or an equivalent qualification. Thus the M. Ed. has been treated a Post Graduate training qualification but the basic qualification required for being appointed as Principal is M A., M. Sc. or M. Com. Along with that the candidate must possess M. Ed. qualification for the post of Principal. M. Ed. is not, therefore, a Post Graduate Degree. It is simply a Post Graduate Training Course. 4. Unamended Appendix annexed to the writ petition by the respondent lays down the following qualifications for the post of Principal. "1. Principal of a (1) Trained M. A. With an experience Higher Secondary or M. Sc. or of teaching for at School or Inter- M. com. It is simply a Post Graduate Training Course. 4. Unamended Appendix annexed to the writ petition by the respondent lays down the following qualifications for the post of Principal. "1. Principal of a (1) Trained M. A. With an experience Higher Secondary or M. Sc. or of teaching for at School or Inter- M. com. or least four years mediate College. M. Sc. (Agri ) in a training inststution recognised by the Department or in or Higher classes or a recognised Higher (2) B. A. or B.Sc. Secondary School, or or B. Com. with in both combined M. Ed. B. Ed. or having at least Sc. (Lucknow) four years experience as a trained Graduate Headmaster of a Junior High School recognised by the Department, provided also that he/she is not below 30 years in age." The qualification laid down are preceded by the following conditions. "For the purpose of this entire list of minimum qualifications, the word 'trained' will imply the possession of a post graduate trained qualifications such as L. T. B. T. B. Ed., B Ed. Sc. (Lucknow), M.Ed, and A. T. C. of the Department. It will also include a C. T. with at least five years' teaching experience.'' The emphasis is laid by the learned counsel on the expression 'trained' in this Appendix. On 9th December, 1976, this Appendix seems to have been amended. For serial no. 1 following is substituted : "1. Head of Institution-(1) Trained M. A. or M. Sc. or M. Com. or M. Sc. (Agri), or any post graduate or other degree equivalent thereto awarded by a body referred to in first paragraph above, with an experience of teaching for at least four years in a training institution recognised by the Department or in a University or Institution on a Degree College affiliated to such University or institution referred to in first paragraph above or in Classes IX to XII of an institution recognised by the Board or affiliated to the Boards' of other States or of similar institutions whose examinations are recognised by the Board or of having at least four years' experience as a trained graduate Headmaster of Junior High School recognised by the Department provided also that he/she is not below 30 years in age. Or (3) Second Class Master's Degree with ten years' experience with distinction of teaching Intermediate classes in a recognised institution. Or (3) Second Class Master's Degree with ten years' experience with distinction of teaching Intermediate classes in a recognised institution. Or (4) Trained post graduate diploma holder in Science provided he passed this Diploma Course in the First or Second Division and has put in meritorious service or 15 or 20 years respectively after passing such diploma course, in a recognised institution". The expression 'trained' is also explained in the said Appendix, which is as follows ;- "The word 'Trained' in respect of the qualifications prescribed hereunder shall imply the possession of a post graduate training qualification such as L. T. B. Ed., B. Sc. or M. Ed. or an equivalent qualification (Degree or Diploma) of any University or institution, as referred to in the preceding paragraph. It will also include A. T. C. of the Department and also C. T. with at least five years' teaching experience, A teacher possession I. T. C./B. T. C. shall also be deemed to be C. T. if he has worked in the C. T. grade for at least five years". From the amended Appendix, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that M. Ed. is a training course in Education and it is not a Post Graduate Degree or equivalent to Post Graduate Degree. It is stated that trained M. A. in the Appendix would mean both M. A. and M. Ed. or M. Sc. or M. Ed. or M. Com, or M. Ed. The M. Ed. alone would not make a person eligible for being appointed to the post of Principal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand submitted that apart from a trained M. A. or M. Sc. M. Com. or M. Sc. (Agri), any post graduate degree holder is qualified to be appointed as Principal and M. Ed. being post graduate qualification, the petitioner has a requisite qualification to be appointed as Principal. 6. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the University Calendar, Allahabad University for the year 1987-88 in Chapter XXXVIII, page 530. or M. Sc. (Agri), any post graduate degree holder is qualified to be appointed as Principal and M. Ed. being post graduate qualification, the petitioner has a requisite qualification to be appointed as Principal. 6. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the University Calendar, Allahabad University for the year 1987-88 in Chapter XXXVIII, page 530. It is laid down that the examination for the Degree of Master of Education shall be open to a candidate who has after graduation passed the B. Ed., B. T. or L. T. Examination or an equivalent examination held by a Provincial Government or by any University in India recognised by the law of the place in which it is situated or of any University or body which the Academic Council may, from time to time, recognise for this purpose, and has pursued for one session the prescribed course of study at the University. Thereafter course of study for the M. Ed Examination is given. In the same Chapter at page 515 another Ordinance is relied upon which lays down that a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must be Master of Arts or Master of Education or Master of Science of the University or Master of Arts or Master of Education or Master of Science of any other University recognised by this University. Another Ordinance in the same Chapter at page 524 is also relied Upon by the counsel for the petitioner. It is prescribed that a candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Letters must be either (1) (a) a Doctor or Philosophy of this University of at least two years' standing, or (b) a Master of Arts or a Master of Education of this University of at least seven years' standing...... ...." On the basis of the aforesaid Ordinances, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Master of Education is a Post Graduate Degree and is not merely a training course. Similar provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1972 are also relied upon. The said provisions relate to the allotment of marks while considering candidates for the post of Principal. An observation made in the case of Smt. Juthika Bhattacharya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2534 is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Similar provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1972 are also relied upon. The said provisions relate to the allotment of marks while considering candidates for the post of Principal. An observation made in the case of Smt. Juthika Bhattacharya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2534 is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the petitioner in that case was holder of B.A.B.T. qualification, she ought to be considered as holding a Post Graduate Degree. While repelling this contention, the Supreme Court observed as under. "A Bachelor's degree like the B.T., or the LL.B. is not considered to be a post-graduate degree even though those degrees can be taken only after graduation. In the refined and elegant world of education, it is the holder of a Master's degree like the M.Ed. or the LL.M. who earns recognition as the holder of a post-graduate degree. That is the sense in which the expression is used in the Memorandum. Mr. Sen says that in some foreign universities even,a Bachelor's degree obtainable only after graduation, is considered as a post-graduate qualification. We are concerned with the interpretation of an indigenous instrument and must have regard for local parlance and understanding. Such awareness and understanding compel the construction for which we have indicated our preference. Indeed, everyone concerned understood the rule in the same sense as is evident from the permission sought by the appellant herself to appear for the M,A. examination. She asked for that permission in order to qualify for the Principal's post." 7. In the regulations while prescribing quality-point marks calculated in the qualification of the Principal, it has been mentioned in Regulation 5 as under : "5. Where a person has applied for the post of the Head of the Institu-. tion and holds Master's Degree on more than one subject, quality-point marks will be awarded on the basis of the Master's Degree in that subject which has a better division as compared to other subject or subjects : Provided that if M.Ed. Degree in a better division as compared to other Master's Degree, the applicant shall not be entitled to any additional marks for M.Ed. under sub-clause (3). Provided further that where the applicant is only M.Ed. with no other Master's Degree quality point marks will be awarded for M.Ed. Degree in a better division as compared to other Master's Degree, the applicant shall not be entitled to any additional marks for M.Ed. under sub-clause (3). Provided further that where the applicant is only M.Ed. with no other Master's Degree quality point marks will be awarded for M.Ed. as a Post Graduate Degree." 8. The case before the Supreme Court was that a Higher Secondary School named as Kanya Naween Vidya Bhawan, Gadarwara in Madhya Pradesh which was registered under the Societies' Registration Act, was taken over by the Government and in June, 1971, the Divisional Superintendent of Education informed the Management of the school about the directions of the Government, as a result of which management of the school, along with its assets was taken over by the Government on 18-6-71. It fully assured the Society that the staff of the school will be absorbed in the new set up. The petitioner's case was that she was entitled to be appointed as a Principal since she was holding a corresponding post in a substantive capacity on the date of absorption but the Divisional Superintendent of Education acting under the directions of the State Government and the Director of Public Instructions directed that the appellant should be absorbed as an Upper Division Teacher in the time scale of Rs. 150-290/-. According to the respondents, in that case, appellant did not hold a Post Graduate Degree and no person could be appointed to the post of Principal unless he or she has held a Post Graduate Degree and possessed the stated length of experience. The appellant in that case had the experience, but she had no qualification of post-graduate. Therefore, she contested the claim upto appex court. It was, in these circumstances, that the Supreme Court made the observation which is reproduced at some place in this judgment. The sole question that falls for determination of this Court is whether the petitioner holds a Post Graduate Degree and whether he is qualified to be appointed as a Principal of the Institution in question on ad hoc basis and is entitled to receive consideration for the said post on permanent basis. 9. The sole question that falls for determination of this Court is whether the petitioner holds a Post Graduate Degree and whether he is qualified to be appointed as a Principal of the Institution in question on ad hoc basis and is entitled to receive consideration for the said post on permanent basis. 9. Having discussed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is a holder of Post Graduate Degree and he possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed as Principal of the institution on adhoc basis because he is, admittedly, a seniormost Lecturer and he is, therefore, entitled to be considered on permanent basis for the said post by the Commission, The reasons for my conclusions are not far to seek. 10. The case before the Supreme Court involved the same question which is involved in this petition. The Supreme Court was considering whether a person holding B.A.B.T. qualification can be termed as a holder of Post Graduate Degree so as to enable him or her to be qualified for being appointed as a Principal. The qualification for appointment of Principal in that case was also being holder of Post Graduate Degree. Though B. T. Training is obtained after graduation but it cannot be a Post Graduate Training nor can LL.B. Training be a post-graduate course even though it is obtained after passing B.A. Examination. However, in the case of M.Ed., it was stated that it is a Post Graduate Training. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that M.Ed. is a Post Graduate Training and guideline is laid down by the Supreme Court, which is applicable in this case also. From reading various provisions from Chapter XXXVIII of the University Calendar, it becomes manifestly clear that a holder of M.Ed Degree is entitled to the same treatment which is to be meted out to a holder of a Master's Degree in Arts and Science. The amendment of the Appendix A affected in 9th December, 1976 so far as sub-para 1 of paragraph (2) of the Appendix A is concerned, does not materially alter the position which was envisaged in the unamended Appendix. It was rightly contended that the words ‘B.A’ or ‘B. Sc’ or ‘B.Com’ with M.Ed. were superfluos and if this superfluous appendage attached to the M.Ed. It was rightly contended that the words ‘B.A’ or ‘B. Sc’ or ‘B.Com’ with M.Ed. were superfluos and if this superfluous appendage attached to the M.Ed. was removed, there was nothing that was materially changed. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since M.Ed. is included in the expression 'trained,' therefore, it cannot be considered a Post Graduate Degree, does not appear to be correct. For appointment of Head of Institution a trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agri) is a requisite qualification but it makes those persons also eligible for appointment who have got a Post Graduate Degree. If M,Ed. is a Post Graduate Degree as is held in this judgment, then the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Principal. Merely because M.Ed. is explained in the expression 'trained,' it does not denude post-graduate character to the M.Ed. qualification. By holding that M.Ed. is a Post Graduate Degree, the expression 'trained' used in the Appendix A as amended on 9th December, 1976 or as used in unamended Appendix, does not become redundant or superfluous. 12. M.Ed. is considered by the University as a Post Graduate Degree and the candidate on the basis of M.Ed. Degree, is entitled to do his Doctorate in some subjects. Therefore, it cannot be said that M.Ed, is not a Post Graduate Degree. It is immaterial that M.Ed. course is only one year's duration. Whether it is one year's or two years' duration, it is a Post Graduate Degree and duration of one year will not exclude it from the array of Post Graduate Degree. From the discussions and reasonings given above, it is necessarily to be held that the petitioner is a holder of a Post Graduate Degree and is entitled to be appointed as Principal on adhoc basis and can receive consideration for the above post on permanent basis and the impugned orders dated 30th and 31st August, 1990 are legally bad, against the provisions of law and violate the petitioner's rights. Therefore these two orders are liable to be quashed. Therefore these two orders are liable to be quashed. The petitioner being the seniormost Lecturer is entitled to hold the post of Principal on the basis of his Post Graduate Degree on adhoc basis till selection is made by the Commission on regular basis for the said post in which the petitioner along with other eligible candidates will be entitled to receive consideration for being appointed to the post of Principal. 13. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30th and 31st August, 1990 are, hereby, quashed as being violative of petitioner's rights. The petitioner is entitled to hold the Post of Principal on a adhoc basis. It is further directed that if any selection is made for the post of Principal on regular basis by the Commission, the petitioner shall also be entitled receive consideration for appointment to the said post along with other eligible candidates. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.